Friday, December 23, 2005

Now what are we fighting for?

Thanks to Stupid Country for this Senator John Cornyn quote:
“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead.”

I heard Rush Limbaugh making the same argument a few days ago. Rush Limbaugh argued incessantly that we’ve never fought a war for civil liberties. It’s the new Republican meme.

What’s strange about this position is that civil liberties, are what is laid out in the Bill of Rights and made into law in The Constitution of the United States of America.

Civil Liberties is just another name for Freedom. After all, what is Liberty if not Freedom? What is Civil? Well it comes from the Latin ‘civilis’ or ‘civis’, which means ‘Citizen’. So what Rush Limbaugh is telling us is that we’ve never fought for our rights and freedoms as citizens of the United States of America.

Rush went on to argue that we’ve only ever fought wars for our right to stay alive. All of our wars have been to prevent the extermination of the American People. We’re fighting in Iraq at this moment, not for Freedom, Not for Democracy, and certainly not for Civil Liberties (the right of the citizens of Iraq to be free), but because our very lives are in danger.

And what does this mean? While listening to him on the radio, I couldn’t quite figure it out. But he kept explaining that the War in Iraq was to save the American people. So, clearly all Americans were being threatened by the people of Iraq. Cheesemakers in Wisconsin were under threat of being exterminated by Iraqis. California was in danger of an Iraqi invasion and subsequent executions in gas chambers. The greatest fears of the people in great state of Kansas, was no longer tornadoes and drought, but an invading horde of Iraqis.

So under this new theory that the US has never fought for freedom and democracy, we need to re-examine the colonial wars against the British. Under this new history, the British were intent on committing genocide against the original colonists that they were taxing for profit and relied on for steady shipments of lumber, in order to keep their colonial expansion moving. It wasn’t about freedom and independence, it was to stop genocide.

And the American Civil war wasn’t about Freedom or economics… It was about stopping the South from committing genocide against the North. The very survival of the people in Northern States depended on defeating the South. Otherwise they would’ve all been executed.

The alternate universe that Rush Limbaugh and John Cornyn live in, is a very strange place. It has no semblance to anything I’m familiar with. It appears to have nothing in common with my experiences, even from last month.

Remember last month when we were in Iraq to promote freedom and democracy? You do? Well according to these people, that didn’t happen. That was never the reason.

And this is the insanity that you have to embrace when you start believing in every contradictory lie, told by the Bush administration. When it’s your job to be an apologist for an administration that argues that it has to take away our freedoms to keep the terrorists from taking them away from us.

Because if we’re to accept the notion that we need our freedoms stripped from us so that we can fight a war in Iraq, we need to some pretty insane ideas shoved done our throats.

Forget everything you ever knew about why we went to Iraq. We’re there because that incredibly powerful nation had the means to vaporize the entire North American continent, and that’s why all Iraqis must die.

It’s not about Freedom anymore. Forget anyone ever said that.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

The New USSR

We have a 20th century precedent for the type of spying that Bush is working to turn into a policy.

Before the Iron Curtain fell, the Soviet Union had amassed huge archives of information by spying on its citizens. That information was sold out on the black market and as a result, there was much mayhem. That information was often used by government workers who bought and sold bits of information to interested parties. It was a very common practice to use it to blackmail government officials, and private parties into committing crimes or paying up.

When the Iron Curtain fell, a lot of that information disappeared and there were many private executions.

This is the legacy that Bush wants to give the US.

More Enemies Of America

So, the New York Times sat on the President’s Treason Story for at a least a year. During this year, the President continued his illegal and unconstitutional actions with the New York Times’ willing help and approval.

Had the New York Times broken the story when it was fresh, the move to force Bush back into a legal realm of activities would’ve occurred sooner. Instead, The New York Times gave Bush the assurance that they would cover for him while he continued to engage in lawless behavior.

If The New York Times interviewed a serial killer and sat on the story for a year, while the killer’s deeds went unknown to law enforcement, you can be there would be an outcry. But in this case, only the US Constitution, our freedoms, our protections, our honor and our dignity were being destroyed. Oh yeah, and the death count in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to rise.

The New York Times is an active accomplice in Bush’s crimes. They aided and abetted his actions. Further, by protecting them, they harbored him from prosecution.

It’s ironic that The New York Times work with Bush to destroy the integrity of the very document that makes it possible for them to exist in a free society at all, The US Constitution.

Bush committed treason. The New York Times were his accomplices. Those responsible in the New York Times need to appear before a judge and get shiny new bracelets.

In war time, traitors like Bush and the management of The New York Times are often punished with the death penalty. Will they get such a punishment for their work to further the cause of the erosion of our rights and freedoms? Will they answer for helping the terrorists destroy America? I doubt it.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Bush Never Stops Thinking

"The terrorists never stop thinking of ways to harm our country, and neither do we." - George Bush II

The Euthanasia Of Freedom

It all makes sense now. Bush has exhorted that Terrorists hate us for our freedoms. And Bush is telling us now that he has a right and an obligation to take our freedoms from us, to protect us from terrorists.

The logic is clear, once our freedoms are gone forever and we’ve forgotten what it was to live in a Republic with freedoms we take for granted today, then the terrorists will be appeased and will quit attacking us.

By destroying American and destroying our freedoms, Bush is beating the terrorists at their own game.

It’s like burning down your house on purpose, so that it won’t burn down on accident. Or when people in besieged cities in the past, killed their own children so they wouldn’t experience the horror of being taken by the invading hordes.

Bush is aligning himself with terrorists and stripping us of our rights, so the terrorists won’t get a chance to do it themselves.

Why didn’t he just say so?

Write Your Representative

Send a message to your Representative, explaining how you feel about Bush's recent actions.


Open Letter to Pete Sessions

Now that Bush has declared war on the US Constitution, began legislating his own laws, declared himself beyond the authority of the US Constitution, US law and the Checks and balances that made our Republic great, what's next for Pete Sessions?

After all, you folks made Bush a Judge when you gave him the right in the Patriot act to disappear people without cause, oversight or legal representation. And now he's declared himself to be beyond the law and to be a lawgiver. So he now embodies all three branches of government.

That makes you redundant. There is no need for a Legislature or Supreme Court in a Monarchy. What will you do as a politician now that you are no longer needed to create legislation? Will you remain a politician or move on to some other endeavor?

Or is it possible, that you've read the US Constitution and you realize that Bush has overstepped his authority and has committed crimes against this Nation, against it's Principles and against Democracy itself. Not only that but he is adamant about continuing to commit crimes against the United States of America and it's People. George Bush has committed Treason. Will you stand with him, against the citizens of the United States of America and Democracy or will you be a true Patriot in this crisis?

Will you take your stand as a traitor and support Bush, or as a patriot and call for his impeachment?

Jack Dingler

Monday, December 19, 2005

Amendment IV

"Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Three Powers of Government in One Man

Bush is adamant about continuing his illegal and unconstitutional executive order.

And as media pundits are explaining, in times of war, our President is not bound by Laws. And thus isn’t bound by the US Constitution. And by a previous Act of Congress, he isn’t bound by judicial restraints either. After all, he can have anyone anywhere, taken and held forever on foreign soil, without charges and without trial.

Now that he is our Commander and Chief, our Legislature, and our Judicial System. Now that he is no longer bound by Laws or the US Constitution, he is now King. And further as he’s started new colonies and has appointed governors to created legislation and rule these colonies, he’s effectively Emperor.

How can anyone that claims to be a Conservative, be supportive of putting all of these powers into the office held by one man, and argue that he is not bound by Laws or a Constitution?

How can we call ourselves a Democracy and Representative Government, when we are ruled by a Monarch?

And if the US constitution no longer binds his office, then term limits do not apply either.

Where are the limits on the Presidency and its powers? I see none at that time. He is King, he is Emperor.

Bush once told us that we are a Nation of Laws. He was just kidding.

Friday, December 16, 2005

This Is One Of Those Days

My wife has asked through the years why I can write songs about politics and people I'm upset with, but never one for her. I guess it was because, I expect that I need to be better than I am, to do such a song justice.

This song is sung to the tune of 'Eamonn An Chniuic'. This song is dedicated to my wife.

This Is One Of Those Days

Jack Dingler
November 2005

This is one of those days, that I’ve promised for you
This is one of those days, when I said that I’d be true
This one of those days, when our dreams will come true
This is one of those days, I’ll make happen for you

I’ve promised before, as I’ve walked out your door
To make good on those things, that I’ve promised oft before
And to those secrets we’ve shared as our souls we’ve laid bare.
It’s time to make good, and to show how I care


And tonight is the night, I’ll be your shining knight
As we hold each other tight, to champagne and candlelight
And the future we’ll share, and our worries and cares
Will dissolve in the knowing, that the other is there.


It seems so many years, have led us this way.
It seems so many tears, have nearly led us astray
It seems so many fears nearly took you away
But today I’ll make you mine, on this fine wedding day


Send a Christmas / Holiday Card

The New York Times it appears, sat on this story for a year. Well, they say they did, while they attempted to decide on the issue of whether spying on US Citizens without a warrant was legal or not. Most Americans know it is illegal. Most Americans know that the US Constitution expressly forbids this.

But the folks at the NYT, evidently didn’t know about this important document.

So, what other stories are they sitting on? I bet they have some juicy ones that could lead to more prosecutions. They seem to have a lot of info about a lot of crimes, squirreled away, if the last few years of print say anything.

George Bush swore and oath on the Holy Bible to uphold the US Constitution. His office (The Presidency), derives it’s very existence, it’s function and it’s responsibilities to this most cherished document. It is in fact, one of the President’s most important functions to safeguard the US Constitution and insure that it is adhered to and safeguarded.

George Bush the II, abrogated those responsibilities when he gave an executive order to the NSA to spy on Americans without oversight and without a warrant.

When he gave this order, he knowingly broke the law.

His order is unconstitutional and illegal and he knew it.

Bush should listen to himself. “We are a nation of laws. The terrorists don’t seem to understand this. We are a nation of laws.” – George Bush II

So I have a request. Let’s spread this meme. I’d like everyone that reads this blog to spread the word to other blogs and keep it going.

Send your Representatives a Christmas/Holiday card this year. In it, simply write, “Impeach Bush”. Let’s please get this rolling before the season is up.

Busy Week!

There sure is a lot going on. More plea bargains in the Delay criminal proceedings, a torture bill that prevents US citizens from actually performing torture duties themselves, and Bush defecating on the US Constitution by approving of the spying on Americans without any legal oversight.

Things aren't looking too good for Delay. Bush says he’s innocent, but at this point, I think Bush could just as easily say that Delay is the Pope and son of Christ and it would mean about the same thing. Bush’s credibility is gone. Pretty much everything he’s told us so far has turned out to be a fabrication. It would actually stun me now to hear him tell the truth about anything of any importance. I think the last verifiable thing he said was that armadillos dig holes. On that day, he told the truth. I’ve seen armadillos dig holes. I believe him.

The McCain bill, to prevent US citizens from performing torture is touted as landmark legislation. I suppose it could be, it’s certainly landmark BS. So what? US Citizens won’t be prosecuted under this law if they tie a prisoner down and let an Israeli or Iraqi do the torturing while the American does the interrogation. It won’t stop US citizens from traveling to Germany, kidnapping German citizens then paying other governments to torture them for us. It’s a toothless law. It’s meaningless.

I’ve heard more than one pundit argue that the US on the whole has the moral upper hand in the war on terror. I can’t really see how that makes any sense. If we’re defining morality and the way the world should conduct the war on terror, then the methods we use can be legitimately used by any other government in their own war on terror. If we’re kidnapping Germans in Germany and taking them to other countries to be tortured, sometimes to death, then it would be reasonable that Germans could come to the US, kidnap Americans outside of Walmart and rendition them to be tortured to death in some third world country. That’s how you fight the war on terror. If the US does it, everyone can. We set the standards.

And now we discover that Bush has made at least one executive order allowing the wiretapping of phone conversations by US citizens, anytime they make an overseas call, all without oversight or a warrant.

And what call might that be? Calls to friends in Canada? Calls to your buds on a cruise vacation? Calls to buds, partying it up in Cancun? Sure, all of these calls can now be wiretapped, recorded, and used at a later time for any purpose. In the old Soviet Union wiretapping was done as a matter of course, like it’s done now. Warehouses full of tapes were stored and often sold off on the blackmarket for blackmail purposes. Got a tape of federal employee that’s discussed an affair with a coworker on the phone? Heck use that tape to blackmail both of them to get free government services. Need such a tape? Get some dirt on an employee that works in the government where they store this mountain of data and leverage it to get more conversations of people in important places. Need to ruin someone in public? Get a tape and post it on the internet.

Many people have argued that such surveillance is necessary to fight the war on terrorism. But there has never been an instance of a government not using such information for corrupt purposes. As the US now regards kidnapping citizens of allied nations, and torturing them to death as a reasonable course of action, why should we expect illegally wiretapped conversations to be used with due prudence? And this executive order is illegal. It is expressly prohibited by the US Constitution. As of course is much of the language in the Patriot Act.

I think right now, we can assume that there are other unconstitutional executive orders out there, that haven’t yet been uncovered. Heck, maybe all cell phone conversations are subject to wiretapping? Did you ever say anything on a cell phone that you wouldn’t want put on the internet for the world to download? I hope not.

Now that the order is old and wiretapping has been going on for some time, there’s likely many interesting conversations with frat buddies in Cancun that will last in archives for generations so that government workers can sit and listen to them, then resell them to interested parties. Even an act of Congress can’t stop this now. Those recordings will live forever in the government bureaucracy.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Frist Believes That Terrorists Can Defeat And Rule The US

The spin is lovely today.

Bush says 30,000 Iraqis have died. The White House says that’s not an official number.

So, did Bush lie? Does Bush know what the number is? Did he just make it up?

Clearly what White House is saying when they tell us that the President’s number isn’t really the right number, is that the President really isn’t aware of what’s going on in Iraq. After all, he doesn’t even know how many casualties there are. Any other Commander and Chief during wartime would know what the score is. Bush hasn’t a clue.

And Frist in an interview today tells us that if we leave Iraq, it will become a haven for terrorists. When the interviewer pointed out that Iraq is a haven for terrorists now, he became agitated and said that the terrorists will take Israel, the rest of the Middle East and then capture the US.

Does he really believe that they have the capability to defeat and rule us on our own shores? Clearly he believes that America is so weak that this will happen if we leave Iraq.

Why does Frist hate America?

Monday, December 12, 2005

US War For Indepence, Is Bush's Model For Iraq

Bush is going to tell us today, how the struggle in Iraq is just like the struggle our founding father’s engaged in, during the founding of the United States of America.

I hope he’s wrong. Right now the US government is playing the role the British played in that war. But I guess he knows what’s best. If that’s the plan then I’m sure many folks will still rally around it.

So far, it seems that winning the war by giving speeches is his best plan.

"Speeches by the president have been helpful," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, a critic of the administration's handling of Iraq policy, said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "They have been long overdue."

And clearly, giving speeches is the way to engage this war.

Well, giving speeches and losing the war appear to be the plan.

After all, when the United States declared Independence, it broke from British rule, engaged in bloody battles, with the British and drove them out of North America. Many British and American men gave their lives in those bloody battles. It was horrific and expensive for both sides.

As this is Bush’s plan for Iraq, I guess we can see an escalation in American casualties now, as Iraq becomes independent and drives US troops and corporations out of Iraq forever.

The US war for Independence doesn’t seem like the best model from a US standpoint in this situation. But I guess Bush knows what’s best.

Funny that this plan looks like Murtha's, except more Americans have to die using Bush's strategy.

I can't help but wonder where Bush's allegiance lies in this conflict.

Death of an American City

I found this link on Tom Tomorrow's site. It's an article I wish I had written. I really have nothing to add. This about says it all.

The price tag for protection against a Category 5 hurricane, which would involve not just stronger and higher levees but also new drainage canals and environmental restoration, would very likely run to well over $32 billion. That is a lot of money. But that starting point represents just 1.2 percent of this year's estimated $2.6 trillion in federal spending, which actually overstates the case, since the cost would be spread over many years. And it is barely one-third the cost of the $95 billion in tax cuts passed just last week by the House of Representatives.

Total allocations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror have topped $300 billion. All that money has been appropriated as the cost of protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. But what was the worst possible case we fought to prevent?

Losing a major American city.

Friday, December 09, 2005

Man With Suspected Bomb Allowed To Board Plane

“It appears that they followed the protocols and did what they were trained to do," – Scott McClellan

That says it all. No passenger heard this man say he had a bomb. He was fighting with his wife and ran for the front of the plan to get off. In this sort of situation, Air Marshals are trained to shoot people dead. Then they put guns to the heads of random passengers and punch cell phones out of their hands.

But as we know, the Air Marshals believed that this man walked through security with a backpack full of explosives. Why did they think that security let him in the airport with a bomb? What did they know about security procedures?

When I’ve flown, I’ve been asked to take off my shoes, empty my pockets and take off my belt. Twice I’ve had to lean up against the wall with my pants falling down while they patted me down. I’ve learned when I fly, to wear a minimal amount of clothing, even in cold weather and shoes that are easy to remove. I also make sure I'm wearing clean underwear. No telling how many people will be seeing it. I remembered the example of the woman forced to strip down to her bra in front of everyone and drink her own breastmilk. If they're going to make you get naked, you oughta have clean undies on.

But evidently where this guy flies, they let people get on planes with bulky backpacks that may have bombs on them, and they don’t search them first? What’s up with that?

"Air marshals receive extensive training, some of the most extensive of any law enforcement agency, and we are very appreciative for all that our air marshals are doing to protect the American people," McClellan said.

And after all these years of training, they're working for lower pay than officers with less training, like FBI Agents? Sounds fishy to me.

If they're so good, why can't they search backpacks before potential bombers get on the plane and have to be shot five times to see if they are terrorists? Why not catch these people before they get into the airport?

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Bush Wants A Do-Over

“Ooops, we screwed up. Can we start over? I want to be the battleship this time” – Probable Bush Quote


After pissing away, what? Almost two years, a couple of trillion dollars, the lives of over 2,000 Americans, and seeing many thousands more wounded, crippled and maimed, Bush now has a plan for rebuilding Iraq?

I thought pissing away American lives was his plan? Now he has a new one?

Let me guess, this new plan will see $4 trillion dollars pissed in our faces and 10,000 American dead? Will this plan be the same as the old plan, you know, the one that sounds exactly like this one, but was implemented in 2003 and led to this failure?

Bush, worst president ever. Likely the worst president we’ll ever have. Complete utter failure.

But Republicans like him, because he fails over and over and over, killing Americans, wasting trillions of dollars, and still he doesn’t give up. And he’s ready to fail again. He’s clearly not ready to quit failing. Republicans clearly love people who fail dramatically and get people killed while doing it. Republicans clearly love the waste. Republicans clearly love people incompetent fools who are losers.

And the Democrats are preaching the same mantra! We’re failing! Stay the course! Keep failing! We can’t stop failing now! Don’t change a thing! Fail harder!

Failures, every frigging one. The White House, and it’s cheerleaders of death, destruction and waste.

Stay tuned, more failures to come as we stay the course to failure.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

The POD People

I wonder how much longer the Peak Oil Debunkers will continue their assault?

Will the POD people continue their conspiracy crusade long after we’ve passed the peak? Will future generations tell stories, pass down myths and create religions based on magical fountains of infinite oil bubbling from the ground? Will they perform rituals and sacrifices to bring back oil, and use old rigs as sacred sites?

Because the entire notion that Peak Oil can be debunked, in itself requires one to believe in magical fantasies. Essentially, Peak Oil relies on the idea that there is a essentially a finite supply of oil. As we pump it out of the ground, what’s left in the ground diminishes. One day, we will have pumped all the oil worth pumping and we’ll stop. Now that day won’t occur when maximum production occurs. It will occur after the number of producing wells and fields has dwindled dramatically. So essentially, the whole theory of Peak Oil says that one year, we will pump oil at the maximum possible rate. After this year, we’ll never pump oil at that rate again. Peak Oil doesn’t even address running out. It just says production will decline after the peak. It assumes we’ll run out, because there is a finite amount of oil to pump.

Now the abiotic oil theory says that oil is continually being replenished from sources deep in the Earth. There’s no proof of this. No evidence. In fact all of the test wells, that suggest this could be the case, turned out to have biological markers in them. So chemists were able to show that the oil had a biological origin. Now Stephen Gould admits that abiotic oil will likely be contaminated with biotic oil, but this means little so far. What we need to find to prove his theory is a single well with verifiable abiotic oil. Then his theory will be proven. We just need to find only one.

Let’s say we find one field that fits the theory. What then? Well, it still takes one million years for the Earth to produce enough oil to run civilization for one year. So it doesn’t really matter. In fact those that say oil will never run out are technically correct. The oil is replenished from the decomposition of biological matter at one millionth of the rate that we consume it. Big frigging deal.

So back to the POD people. In order to prove that Peak Oil is a myth, one has to prove that oil is not finite. After all that’s the core of the Peak Oil argument. How do we prove that oil is infinite. Well, some sort of theory needs to be constructed to explain where the infinite supply of oil resides. We know that using traditional scientific techniques and logic, that the mass of oil in the Earth, must be less than the mass of the Earth itself. So the infinite quantity of oil can’t be residing in the physical space, bounded by the Earth. We know that oil doesn’t exist between the Earth and the moon, because our spaceships and satellites don’t get oily in space. Perhaps the dark matter in space is oil? How would we verify this? Would it matter? How could we get it to Earth? But still, it’s thought that our universe is finite. If it is, then it can’t contain an infinite quantity of oil. If our universe is infinite, then it could contain an infinite quantity of oil. But still, how do we get it?

So maybe the oil exists in an inter-dimensional region of space? Perhaps it exists outside our space time continuum? So how do we get it? And an infinite amount of oil burned, would require an infinite quantity of oxygen. Where will we find that? And finally, it would be bad to pump and burn an infinite quantity of oil. After all, it would add an infinite quantity of mass to our planet in the form of CO2. At some point, our planet would collapse and begin fusion, becoming a star if it didn’t simply explode first. That would be bad. Even that day would be peak oil day, because we’d quit pumping oil, as we’d be dead.

So what’s left for debunking Peak Oil? Well, magical fantasies can be used I assume. And that’s what the POD people are engaging in when they think they can disprove Peak Oil and thus prove there’s an infinite supply of oil to be pumped and burned.

So let them believe in Hydrocarbon Elves and Natural Gas Faeries. The alternative, dealing with reality and living within the boundaries of our space-time continuum is hard. It’s hard work. It’s real hard. It’s hard. Let them believe their magical stories and myths a little longer. It makes no difference in the grand scheme of things.