Thursday, February 23, 2006

Bush Is A War President! So Shut It Congress!

Stupid Country makes an interesting case in Running on Fumes.

Bush is a war president and so, should be allowed to do anything he wants. Congress has no authority in this matter if Bush says they don't. As he's got his Burdizzo latched onto Frist's privates, he's gonna win this one.

Heck I think it's a part of the new plan in fighting terrorism. we'll fight terrorists in our home ports, so we don't have to fight them in our homes.

Remember, Congress is ruled and owned by the President during wartime. Presidents become Kings, once they start an undeclared war against an undefined enemy.

As consorts, concubines and eunachs to the President of The United States, The US Congress better start doing what they are told to do, or Bush is gonna get them.

Bob Dole consults for Dubai company

Deal concerns Sen. Elizabeth Dole

This aspect of the deal is one that was troubling me yesterday. I wondered how this could get so screwed up.

Somewhere along the way, one of two things probably happened. Either the UAE forgot to bribe and buy all of the right politicians, or someone in the loop pocketed the money before it could get to the polticians.

George Bush has explained that he's been in the loop all along, even as the White House says he was ignorant of the whole deal. Perhaps someone in his administration mishandled the alleged bribery funds?

As we know politicians are in the business of nurturing ethics, moral, patriotism and even good manners in hopes that someone with a dollar will ask them to bend over sell them out. So clearly what went wrong in this deal is that the honey didn't make it to everyone that thinks they deserved some.

Once the bribery money makes it to all of the whiners that want a cut, that deal will go through quicker than a politician can pretend to offer a reach-around, to one of his constituents.

And if a terrorist attack comes out of this loosening of security, it won't be Washington's fault. They have no trouble finding scapegoats when they get caught screwing up.

It's never been about security. It's always been about pocketing money. This time is no different.

"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing..if you can fake that, you've got it made." - Groucho Marx

"People don't need to worry about security." – George Bush

"This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America" – George Bush

Bush on Thursday questioned whether a double standard was being applied to a Middle East company, saying, "It's OK for a British company to manage ports, but not OK for a company from a country that's also a valuable partner" in the war on terror.
Bush added, "It's really important that we not send mixed messages to allies." – George Bush

So where does China stand on this? Bush made it clear that the deal allowing China buy Chevron would pose a threat to our National Security.

So the message from Bush is clear. China which sells cheap crap to use through Walmart is our enemy and a threat. The United Arab Emirates which has a history of supporting terrorism against the United States and is still known to be a port of entry for smuggling nuclear materials into Iran is our friend.
Bush has spoken, supporters of international terrorism are our friends, nations that we have free trade agreements with, are our enemies.

But as Bush made clear, we should be happy with him licking our little puppy butts. This is a matter for adults and the American people are too ignorant to understand the adult world that he lives in. We should trust him, because he can tell the good terrorists that want to kill us from the bad terrorists that want to kill us.

In my opinion, our ports are of vital importance to our National Security; they should all be managed and maintained by the US government or by US corporations with no foreign ties. But I probably think that because I’m too ignorant to understand the Arabs that support terrorism, the way Bush does. After all he grew up in that culture.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Bush Is Freaking Out Republicans

Once again, the Rove memos didn't get out about what the talking points should be in regards to the possible sale of six US ports to terrorist financiers.

And it's a difficult issue to understand. It's complicated. Bush has worked hard to paint all Arabs as terrorists. And for many Americans, the idea that all Arabs are terrorists is an easily understood notion.

So it's understandable that Bush is having some difficulty in selling America's National Security to the United Arab Emirates.

So I'll try for a moment to explain how this works.

In Bush's world, there are bad people who want to kill Americans, destroy liberty and defeat America in an international war, and there are good people who want to kill Americans, destroy liberty and defeat America in an international war.

UAE are the good terrorists. Sure one of the 9/11 hijackers was came from the UAE. Sure some of the funds were drawn from UAE banks. Sure the UAE has a history of funding Al Queada and other terrorist organizations. Sure, the UAE smuggles nuclear parts and supplies to Iran. And sure, the UAE still has ties to terrorism and is probable still involved in killing Americans in Iraq.

But Bush is friends with some of these people. He's been to parties with them. He's accepted money from some of them. The Arabs have been very good to Bush as a whole. Bush loves Arabs.

So there's good terrorists that want to kill you and destroy America and there are bad terrorists that want to kill you and destroy America.

You can trust Bush to know which is which.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

Oh My God, What An Enormous Cock!

Some chicken humor. You gotta see it to believe it.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Pete Session and the New Detention Centers

This letter to Pete is based on an article found at the New York Times and a few other places.

I've been reading about Haliburton's new no bid contract to build detention centers in the US to house people during crisis and for other purposes not yet defined, in a number of mainstream rags.

I've also been seeing mainstream articles about an increasning number of sensitive government services being put under corporate control and oversight. Voting is the most visible example of selling democracy to private corporations, but the OSIS is troubling too.

So I have to ask, as you work to increasingly turn the US into a corporately controlled military financial complex, what kind of future are you trying to build for your grandchildren?

As we saw in USSR, the system you are building can't be anything but corrupt and backstabbing. And in them, political systems shift and turn. How can you be sure that this system won't be turned again you and yours? How can you be certain that you and your will never get in the way of those that own the country?

The US you are building, in which every function turns on grift, bribery, secret files and secret detentions isn't going to be friendly to many people at all. Even those at the top will have to keep a watchful eye on each other. We've seen al of this before.

Why would you want this for America?

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Digging Holes

Before Bush came to office, cutting budgets normally meant cutting planned budget increases. There was the odd pork cut, like the mohair goat subsidy that was eliminated entirely. But for the most part, programs seen as essential for the domestic well being of the country normally didn’t see actual budget cutbacks.

Since Bush has entered office and costs of goods and services have continued to rise to match the free wheeling Fed policies, budgets for domestic services have been cut, while budgets for foreign policy and security programs have seen an unending series of budget increases.

At this time, it appears that this trend is going to continue and accelerate.

Right now, the value of the US dollar is under fire. Under Greenspan, the virtual printing presses were running wide open. After the recession that began in May 2001, the Fed dropped interest rates to ridiculously low levels and flooding the international market with dollars. If you look at the chart at the top of the page, you can see how the US government has gone on an unprecedented spending spree, freely borrowing and spending money like there’s no tomorrow. Other nations have taken notice.

Japan and China are both making measures to reduce their dollar holdings. Iraq attempted to do the same and begin using Euros and their trading currency instead of dollars. That experiment was short lived. The US invaded and removed Saddam from power soon after he took that action. Now Iran has removed their money from the European banking system and is steadily exchanging dollars for Euros. In March, Iran plans to quit accepting dollars as legal currency for oil and require Euros instead.

This is not about which currency oil is priced in, this is about what currency you need to provide to buy oil. As the dollar is losing strength against the Euro, exchanging dollars for Euros to buy oil, means that not only does the price of oil rise in dollar denominated pricing, but its costs are also felt in fees for currency exchanges and time lags in making the exchange.

If oil is sold in Euros, then the best currency to hold in order to meet expected order for oil is Euros. This means that those buying oil, will be encouraged to trade in Euros and may take a hit if they in turn accept payments in dollars. The shift will come up the line with international corporations encouraged to divest dollars and keep their accounts in Euros. This means that the international banking system will be responsible for holding dollars, instead of corporations and nations and will incur losses when the dollar slips further in value. They will attempt to move the risk back, to US entities that will see an increase in the rate of dollar devaluation. The more nations we see selling oil denominated in Euros, the more risk will be moved upstream, back to the US Government to cover losses, currently covered by China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others. Eventually the value of the dollar will rest on the actual industrial output of the US which sees exports at one quarter of its imports. The US will be forced to either control the rate at which the dollar inflates, or find itself unable to purchase foreign goods.

The Republican lead US Government, shows no sign that they wish to reign in spending or change economic policies to repair this deteriorating situation. Instead, the White House is working to further inflame Middle East tensions and is pushing Iran. Iran knows they are in Washington’s gun sights and they know that if they don’t escalate their arsenal, they’ll become another Iraq. They also know that adding nukes to their arsenal, they’ll likely be turned into another Iraq. The White House is following the same course it did against Iraq and this sends a clear message that war with Iran is a done deal. So from Iran’s point of view, war is imminent, so they must prepare for the fight. Preparing for war, means getting working their nuclear weapons working. And if they do have nukes, and the US does start bombing them, then we can be sure they’ll detonate those nukes somewhere. At this time we can’t even be sure that the Russians haven’t already provided them

If the US does not go to war with Iran, then Iran will lead the way in devaluing the US dollar. Other nations will see the wisdom in getting ahead of the trend and the rush will be on. If the US does go to war with Iran, then oil shipments out the gulf will be dramatically reduced and the world will be plunged into a deep recession/depression. Perhaps the US is simply looking at this as a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario? If so, go against Iran (a nation that’s much more used to war and sacrifice than the US), expecting them to back down, isn’t very smart.

I think whatever plan is in the works, has some intelligence behind it. I believe that the White House and friends know the situation is no irreparable, so they’re just taking what they can before it all burns down. I would think there’s a good chance that Bush and Cheney both have large holdings in Euros.

So the stripping of funding on education, Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrak and probably countless other useful programs will continue and accelerate. This will lead to civil unrest, so funding to support Homeland security is of course, without bounds.

The purpose appears to be to ready the nation for war. It’s to give the people a choice of starving in the dark or taking a bullet in the ME. And it will creep upon us in little pieces, in little bites. They know they can’t do it to us all at once.

The year of 2006 is expected to see the first major natural gas shortages. With that will of course come price gouging. So the people will be diverted to being angry, not with the government for bad policy, but at bad people who are exploiting the situation. Of course, our leaders have known all along that the US is running out natural gas, that’s why they created subsidy programs to pay corporations to move their operations overseas.

Enjoy the show.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

Clueless Gonzales

Now we know, to the Attorney General's knowledge, the illegal spying program has not led to the capture of even on Al Queda suspect, even though it's been going on for years.

and the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales says that he is reponsible for passing on pertinent intelligence to the President on this matter. So the answer is that this illegal program has produced no results.

Further, there is no oversight in the program.

BIDEN: Thank you very much.

General, how has this revelation damaged the program?

I'm almost confused by it but, I mean, it seems to presuppose that these very sophisticated Al Qaida folks didn't think we were intercepting their phone calls.

I mean, I'm a little confused. How did it damage this?

GONZALES: Well, Senator, I would first refer to the experts in the Intel Committee who are making that statement, first of all. I'm just the lawyer.

And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.

But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget.


And you're amazed at some of the communications that exist. And so when you keep sticking it in their face that we're involved in some kind of surveillance, even if it's unclear in these stories, it can't help but make a difference, I think.

BIDEN: Well, I hope you and my distinguished friend from Alabama are right, that they're that stupid and naive because we're much better off if that's the case.

I go the impression from the work I've done in this area that they're pretty darn sophisticated; they pretty well know.

It's a little like when we talk about -- when I say you all haven't -- not you, personally -- the administration has done very little for rail security.

They've done virtually nothing and people say, oh, my Lord, don't tell them; don't tell them there's vulnerabilities in the rail system. They'll know to use terror. Don't tell them that that tunnel was built in 1860 and there's no lighting, no ventilation.

BIDEN: I mean, I hope they're that stupid.

GONZALES: Sir, I think you can be very, very smart and be careless.

BIDEN: Well, OK. But if that's the extent of the damage, then I hope we focus on some other things, too.

Look, I'd like to submit for the record a letter to the -- it's probably already been done -- to Senators Specter and Leahy from former Secretary Jamie Gorelick. She makes a very basic point. I don't want to debate at this time. She said the Aldrich Ames case is about physical search. FISA didn't cover physical searches, as my distinguished friend from Alabama knows. At the time they conducted the search, FISA did not cover physical searches.

And then she went on to say, "My testimony did not address whether there would be inherent authority to conduct physical search if FISA were extended to cover physical searches. After FISA was extended to cover physical searches, to my knowledge, FISA warrants were sought."

So, I mean, let's compare apples and apples and oranges and oranges.

Let me ask a few other basic questions, because for me, I have real doubts about the constitutionality, as others have raised here. I used to have a friend who used to say, you got to know how to know. You got to know how to know. And we don't know.

Now, you're telling me and the rest of us that the director of the CIA says we've been damaged. Well, the former director told us that we were be going to be greeted with open arms, that they had weapons of mass destruction. It was honest mistakes. I mean, for me to accept the assertion made by a single person is something I'd consider, but is not dispositive.

Let me ask you this question. Do you know -- and you may not -- do you know how many of these wiretaps and/or e-mail intercepts have resulted in anything?


BIDEN: Any criminal referral.

GONZALES: Without getting into specifics, Senator, I can say that the director of the FBI said this has been a very valuable program. And it has helped identify would-be terrorists here in the United States, it has helped identify individuals providing material support for terrorists.

General Hayden has said this has been a very successful program, that but for this program, we would not have discovered certain kinds of information.

General Hayden also said that this program has helped detect and prevent -- I think those were his words -- attacks both here and abroad.

These folks are the ones that are paid to make these kinds of assessments. I'm not.

BIDEN: Have we arrested those people? Have we arrested the people we've identified as terrorists in the United States?

GONZALES: When we can use our law enforcement tools to go after the bad guys, we do that.

BIDEN: No, that's not my question, General. You said that -- you cited the assertions made by Defense Department, by General Hayden, by the FBI that this has identified Al Qaida terrorists. Have we arrested them?

GONZALES: Senator, I'm not going to go into specific discussions about...

BIDEN: I'm not asking for specifics, with all due respect.

GONZALES: ... in terms of how that information has been used and the results of that information.

BIDEN: Well, I hope we arrested them, if you identified them. I mean, it kind of worries me because you all talk about how you identify these people, and I've not heard anything about anybody being arrested. I hope they're not just hanging out there like we had these other guys hanging out prior to 9/11. I don't think you'd make that mistake again.

Can I ask you again, how is this material that proves not to -- suspected Al Qaida terrorist calls from Abu Dhabi, American citizen in Selma, Alabama. Turns out that when you do the intercept the person on the other end from Abu Dhabi wasn't a terrorist -- understandable mistake -- and it turns out the person in Selma wasn't talking to a terrorist. What do you do with that conversation that's now been recorded?

GONZALES: What I can say, Senator, is there are minimization procedures in place. You and I had this conversation before about the minimization procedures that may exist with respect to this program.

BIDEN: That may exist? Either they do or they don't. Do they exist?

GONZALES: There are minimization procedures that do exist with this program. And they would govern what happens to that information.

BIDEN: Does anybody know what they are?

GONZALES: Yes, sir, the folks out at NSA who are actually administering this program.

BIDEN: Have they told anybody in the Congress? Have they told any court?

GONZALES: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question.

BIDEN: I guess maybe you all don't have the same problem I have. If, in fact, there are minimization procedures, and they are being adhered to, no problem. If, in fact, the people being intercepted are Al Qaeda folks, and they're talking to American citizens, no problem.

But how do we know? I mean, doesn't anybody get to look at this, ever? Doesn't a court, retrospectively get to look at it? Doesn't the royalty within the Senate get to look at it? You know, this two, four, or eight people. Doesn't somebody look at it?

Or, you know, the Cold War lasted 40 years. This war is likely to last 40 years. Is this for 40 years we have so sit here and assume that every president is, yes, well, we know old Charlie. He's a good man. We're sure they wouldn't do anything wrong.

And we know no one in the intelligence community would ever do anything wrong. We have a history of proving that never occurred. And we know nobody in the FBI will ever do anything wrong. That's clear. That never occurred.

I mean, is there someplace along the line that somebody other than an analyst who we don't know, but we know he's asserted to be an expert on Al Qaida, is there somebody other than that person who is ever going to know what happened?

And whether or not there is, the next president may be less scrupulous. Maybe he or she will be engaged in data mining.

GONZALES: Sir, as I indicated in my opening remarks, that of course, the inspector general out at NSA, he has the responsibility to ensure that the activities under this program are done in a way that's consistent with the president's authorization, including the minimization requirements.

BIDEN: OK. This reminds me of a Supreme Court hearing.

What goes into the president making his decision on reauthorization every 45 days? Does anybody come and say, Mr. President, look, we have done 2117 wire taps or 219. You've had 60 percent of them had some impact, or only 1 percent has an impact. And we think -- or is it automatic? What kinds of things does the president look at, other than we still have Al Qaida out there?

GONZALES: It's not automatic. As I also indicated in my opening statement, the president receives information from the intelligence community about the threat. The threat is carefully evaluated as to whether or not we believe Al Qaida continues to be a continuing threat to the United States of America.

BIDEN: So as long as it is the program, so that's the criteria, "is Al Qaida a threat," not "is the program working," but "is Al Qaida the threat"? Is that the criteria?

GONZALES: Well, of course not. If we don't have a tool, a lawful tool that's effective, why would we use it? We only use a tool if it's effective.

BIDEN: Thank you, General.

GONZALES: Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, could I ask for a short break?

SPECTER: Granted.

GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Monday, February 06, 2006

Another Open Letter To Pete Sessions

What's this about Condaleeza Rice saying the White House was caught off guard by the election of Hamas in Palestine?

Isn't the purpose of illegal spying on Americans and the continuance of the illegal Patriot Act intended to make the White House more aware of threats against our nation?

After years of spying on Americans, and telling us that they have to keep illegally spying Americans in order to fight terrorism, they are still caught off guard by something they could probably have read in a Palestinian newspaper?

How many more billions of dollars do we need, in order for the White House to get a small clue about the rest of the world? Spying on private conversations between Congressmen and their spouses will not teach Condaleeza Rice anything about what's going in Palestine.

The administration has continually screwed things up and caused massive loss of life, not because they aren't getting enough money or that they are limited by laws, they are screwing up because they are inept bunglers.

And yet, you continue to insist that the only way that these Keystone Cops can save us from the boogey man, is to give them more power?

Condaleeza shouldn't have given that speech. If the White House is that ignorant of affairs going on in the Middle East, they should just keep quiet. Announcing to the world how ignorant they are of ME politics is just a frigging stupid move.

These people don't need more power. They aren't qualified to yield it. They need limits so that they are not a danger to themselves and others.

Friday, February 03, 2006

War With Iran

I think war with Iran is a done deal. Diplomacy is not an option and as Bush is fond of telling us, he's a War President. War is what he wants to be known for and war is what he's best at. He'll wage war all through his presidency. He won't win, but he'll fight them, and that's enough.

In his own words...

March 6, 2003

President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

Second, we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?

Iraq's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few missiles -- missiles that violate the restrictions set out more than 10 years ago. Yet, our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles.

Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases, these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.

We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to wear concealed recording devices during interviews, and hotels where interviews take place are bugged by the regime.

These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world. If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it, because we would see it. Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors, and the world would witness their destruction. Instead, with the world demanding disarmament, and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his country, Saddam Hussein's response is to produce a few weapons for show, while he hides the rest and builds even more.

Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received -- the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcome is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council -- total disarmament.

Great Britain, Spain, and the United States have introduced a new resolution stating that Iraq has failed to meet the requirements of Resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied.

Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.

Still Another Open Letter To Pete Sesssions

I see that the Patriot Act was extended again. It's big, unconstitutional, but touted as a necessary evil in waging the war on terror.

You've argued that it's a highly effective tool in fighting the war on terror. And it does so by removing constitutional freedoms from Americans.

If it is as effective as you argue it is, then how many American terrorists have been tried and convicted under this legislation? The number of Americans arrested, tried and convicted I would expect, must be in the thousands, in order to make suspension of constitutional rights a trade off worth considering. Can you point me to any resource that document shte thousands of American terrorists that have been convicted because this law exists, and could not have been tried and convicted under constitutionally legal legislation?

And also, could you point me to a resource that describes how many more arrests and convictions have resulted from the President illegally spying on Americans, than would have resulted, had he used the FISA act?

Do the courts now as a matter of fact, use illegally obtained or falsified evidence in court cases?

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases

This has appeared in other blogs, but I think it’s worth repeating.

It demonstrates that for the most part, people don't think about the content of politics. Instead they rely on the instincts of tribal affiliations. This goes a long way toward explaining why people support candidates that work against their own self interest. It's not because they want candidates to betray them, but because the animal part of our brains rewards us for being loyal to the group.

Emory University psychologist Drew Westen put self-identified Democratic and Republican partisans in brain scanners and asked them to evaluate negative information about various candidates. Both groups were quick to spot inconsistency and hypocrisy -- but only in candidates they opposed.

When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that "reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior.

I couldn't help but think the following quote was added in for humor. The article is about knee jerk, unthinking reactions to information that we don't like, and Brian Jones, demonstrates this effect admirably. He disagrees, but doesn't know why, then goes on to attack the researchers based on percieved party affiliations. He provides a fine example for demonstrating the effect covered in the research.

Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he disagreed with the study's conclusions but that it was difficult to offer a detailed critique, as the research had not yet been published and he could not review the methodology. He also questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats.

This also explains the Yoosta-Bees effect (Thank you Tom Tomorrow), where people that change party affiliations, undergo a radical transformation, often to a hard line stance in the new party. It's been noted that many people who change parties, will radically reject everything they once believed in, and will completely embrace the new party line.

This same effect is seen in those that change religious affiliations. This suggests to me that party affiliations are no different than religious affiliations in the emotional and subconcious effects they invoke. It also explains for me why many people can't think rationally about candidates that belong to the same political sect, that they belong to.

This further diminishes any hope that I have that humans on the whole will act rationally in their own self interest while I yet live. And in this case, I mean self interest as encompassing self, family, community and the future of their families. As people are irrational in supporting tribal affiliations that work against their own self interests, this effect must manifest in a myriad of smaller ways throughout our daily lives.

The American people will continue to support their party and their candidates no matter what sins or crimes they commit, because they can't help it. They will allow their representatives to take away their rights, their freedoms, their liberties, because they are not equipped to recognize it. And they will fight to defend the people that working against their interests, because they share a common tribal name, becuase they belong to the same political sect, simply because they cannot help themselves.

Thank you Brian Jones, for providing such an effective demonstration of this very human instinct.

Free Speech Is For Iraq, Not America

Well, it seems that arresting Cindy Sheehan and ejecting a Congressman’s wife, at the Capital Building before the State of the Union Address was a big mistake. Charges are being dropped and apologies made.

It seems all that she is guilty of, is breaking tradition by not dressing formally. Yet, one attendee was naked except for a necklace.

But the message is clear. If you want to practice free speech, go to Iraq where our soldiers are fighting for freedom. In the US, terrorists want to destroy our freedoms, so we have to give in and give up.

If you live in America and you disagree with President’s conduct, then keep your mouth shut. Otherwise you’re helping the terrorists. Don’t like Bush? Keep your mouth shut. Don’t like Clinton? Keep your mouth shut.

It’s the new way.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Bush Is Ready To Attack Iran

Bush: US would defend Israel against Iran

"I am concerned about a person that, one, tries to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, and two, has made it clear that his intentions are to destroy Israel," Bush said.

"Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel's defense if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world as well," he added.

Asked if he meant the United States would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel."

As the US now embraces a doctrine of pre-emptive war, this suggests that a war with Iran is a done deal. If we combine this with Bush's recent declaration that the US citizenry are all addicts dependant on the oil he sells, we might wonder how soon this war will begin.

A war with Iran is sure to put the world's supply of oil in jeopardy and probably sink the US into a social and economic crisis that will be of epic proportions. My grandparent's generation lived through the Great Depression and World War II and could probably go far in telling us what to expect. But very few of that generation are left. Besides the US was much different then. More folks lived on the farm. There were fewer people living here overall. The people weren't dependant on China and commercial food processing for their daily sustenance.

Bush is taking us into unknown territory here. And he'll likely have a willing religious base behind him in his push for war. A great many Americans believe that the next war will force God into invoking the rapture, and take them up to heaven to bask in his grace. What I find especially disturbing about this belief is that it's the Anti-Christ that rises and triggers these events. If Bush is meant by his religious fundamentalists followers, to perform this function, then in their mythology, Bush is the beast, the Anti-Christ. His followers wear the mark of the beast. And the mindless followers of the beast don't get raptured in that story. I'm not sure how they figure they can force God to destroy the Earth, and still be in God's grace.

From my own reading of the Bible, I'm not so sure the Rapture or Revelations is really something to count on. Revelations was written by someone named John. But what John? Few scholars believe he was John the Baptist. So maybe Christians should think of revelations as scary gothic novel rather than something that is going to happen for their benefit.

And if you don't think you're going to be raptured, what do you think of this mess? We have to live on this frigging planet. Trashing it in order to force God into destroying it, and fixing it up, just doesn't sound like a reasonable course of action. After we trash it, I don't think God will be interested in doing anything for us. Imagine a teenager tearing up the furniture, carpeting sheetrock, etc... in their room in order to force you into remodeling it. How kindly would you look on such an action? Would you lovingly restore the room and embrace that teen? your answer is probably, "Hell No!". So why should we expect God to clean up after us?

I believe Bush and his base of fundamentalist religious zealots will continue their war with Islam and will continue to trash the planet. I just hope that somewhere along the way, people start waking up and working to turn this horrifying situation around.

But I don't expect that until the Middle East is in flames and the US is the throes of a depression greater than the Great Depression. By then the general draft will be in full gear, and it will be clear to everyone that we went wrong somewhere, while thinking it we were doing the right thing.

"I'd rather do the wrong thing for the right reasons, than the right thing for the wrong reasons." - Dick Armey

Rest In Peace Hildegard

Sadly this morning, my wife's favorite hen was found dead in our backyard. She was some 100ft from the hen house with a trail of feathers leading to the spot where we found her. Quite a few feathers were left on the porch. She wasn't bloody and had not been eaten on. It looks like someone played with her to death.

We have a supect, though she's not talking. That's Ella, our 30lb, five month old blue heeler mix puppy. She's a Katrina rescue pup. She's been very good with the birds so far. Probably a little too reserved. I think curiosity got to her and she felt irresistably drawn to break into the coop, and get a bird out to play with.

My project this weekend is to make the coop harder to get into, and spend some quality time with Ella and the hens.

I'll see about posting a pic of the perp this weekend.

Cowardly Bush, Has Sheehan Arrested

In a show of manliness before the State of the Union Address last night, Bush in a demonstration of his fear of free speech, had Cindy Sheehan arrested in the Capital Building.

Out of fear of her T-Shirt, which read, "2,245 Dead. How many more?", Sheehan was arrested around 8:30 p.m. on charges of unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail. Clearly, Bush found the statistics printed on her T-Shirt disturbing and could not face them. Sheehan had been invited to the State of the Union Address by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California.

After the frightening Cindy Sheehan was sent off to booking, bedwetter Bush told the American people that they are petroleum addicts, addicted to oil that is provided by countries in bad parts of the world. Like oil that comes from his good friends in Saudi Arabia, and oil that his family is making lots and lots of money on. He promised that America would become more reliant on coal for its energy needs, a move that truly makes him a 19th century president. Further he went on to extol the virtue of powering our great nation with switchgrass and nuclear energy. He announced that the nation should become more reliant on alternative sources of energy. A pretty bold move IMO, considering, that the quantity of energy available in alternatives will be significantly less than we are enjoying now.

He went on to threaten Iran and remind us that Iran is a boogy man that we should be afraid of. And I agree. If Iran goes through with their plan to sell oil in Euros (not just price them that way), then the burden of holding freshly made dollars will fall not on oil producing nations, but on the Central Banks in Europe (the same banks that set exchange rates). If Iran begins banking Euros and shedding dollars, then the Central banks will be forced to change the exchange rate for the dollar and devalue it. This will make it much more expensive for Americans to print money to buy oil with.

“In interviews with 464 adult Americans who watched the speech, 48 percent said they had a very positive reaction. That's well short of the three-quarters of viewers who reacted favorably to Bush's 2002 State of the Union address.” – Evidently 48% of Americans like being called oil addicts.

Get ready America, Bush is set on taking your SUVs away! Just kidding. :) He’s not going lose out on oil profits by refusing to feed your addiction. There’s lot's more money to be made by just jacking up the price of oil!

Surprisingly, Bush reportedly made no mention of Osama Bin Laden, the man that he argues is of no concern, and is out to get us. Bush recently told us that this marginalized person of no concern, means what he says when he tells us he's gonna get us again. Booga! Booga! Be afraid! Bush can't save us unless he breaks laws.