As the job approval of George Bush continues to fall, it is clear to more and more Americans that George Bush does not represent their values. In fact Mr. Bush does not even represent the values of many republicans.
The latest poll from CBS finds the job approval of Bush down to a mere 37%. And support for the war in Iraq down to a mere 32%. And 59% of Americans now want American soldiers out of Iraq as soon as possible, however supposedly as support for the October 15, vote on the constitution in Iraq, there are now 152,000 American soldiers in Iraq, a new increase of 14,000.
Republican senator, John McCain of Arizona brought a bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate, that was overwelming supported that banned torture of detainees in response to the outrageous abuses justified as "interrogation" techniques at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. Mr. Bush now threatens to veto this bill. For someone who claimed to be some sort of a "compassionate conservative", this calls into question the values system of George Bush.
John McCain faced years of harsh and abusive treatment as a prisoner at the infamous "Hanoi Hilton" in North Vietnam, after a SAM missile damaged his Navy jet and he was forced to bail out over Vietnam. With so many years of harsh treatment, McCain is very sensitive to the fact that American prisoners of war may face harsh treatment from enemy armies in future years unless America sets a standard that prisoner abuse is not morally acceptable. Allowing prisoner abuse is to weaken the accepted international standards of the Geneva Convention for humane treatment of POWs. And the argument of some, such as those of the Bush Administration, that detainees from Iraq or Afghanistan do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection is an outrageous denial of humane treatment for a captured enemy fighter that we expect to be extended to any American military or civilian man, woman or child captured as well. My own grandfather, Captain John Einarson was a merchant marine captain during WWII. He was born in Norway, and spoke with a British accent. He was a very worldly and handsome gentleman. But while transporting arms to American, British and Australian soldiers in the Pacific, his ship was captured by the Japanese Navy, and he faced abusive torture including flogging to try to force information from him about allied troop positions in the Pacific. Desipte the Geneva Conference rules, even civilians like this faced terrible abuses. Many Japanese involved were later brought to trial for war crimes against both civilians and allied soldiers as well. The values of George Bush are far from the mainstream if he believes that torture and abuse should be allowed as an option for America to practice. All POWs are entitled to humane treatment.
And in another area, conservative republican senator Charles Grassley wants to extend Medicaid funds to the Katrina disaster victims who currently do not have any medical benefits. This involves some emergency help to 6,000 persons in Louisiana and maybe 10,000 more displaced in other states. And again the values of the Bush Administration are brought into question, as Bush opposes the use of temporary medical benefits to those in Louisiana who lost their homes and are still homeless and in a world of economic hurt.
Legendary entertainer, and liberal republican, Paul Newman has contributed more than $150 million to charity through the sale of his Newman's Own products. Not only are these foods top quality, but all profits help provide important funds to worthy projects. Rev. Pat Robertson, a very conservative, but also very compassionate republican, donated $22.5 million in medical supplies and 2.5 million pounds of food to the recent Katrina hurricane disaster victims, and the food was prepared as free meals that was served by members of Menonite faith. Yet Bush draws the line at certain aid to the disaster victims, playing the a role of befitting of "Scrooge".
Mr. Bush attempted to promote his "compassionate conservatism" as some sort of conservative answer to the long tradition of kindness towards others inherent in American liberalism. But as time goes on, and the curtain is opened just like the curtain of the man in the Wizard Of Oz, it appears that man behind the curtain hardly has as much heart as he claims. The man behind the curtain of "compassionate conservatism " is little more than a fraud.
Friday, October 7, 2005
Thursday, October 6, 2005
The Unethical Packing Of The Supreme Court
While I'm both personally prolife, and also voted twice against the assisted suicide measure on the Oregon ballot that is now at issue in the Supreme Court, I am nonetheless very concerned at the White House efforts to unethically make the Supreme Court an instrument of a narrow "conservative" ideology rather than an arena in which all cases are given a fair hearing.
With the court hearing on Oregon's assisted suicide issue, the questioning of John Roberts on the court took a sharp turn from the questioning of other justices, instead looking to identify with the same line of legal reasoning of Alberto Gonzales who is the plaintiff for the Justice Department's line on the assisted suicide issue. And this raises some ethical questions about the role of the court and the official policies of the Bush Administration. Roberts is a former corporate lobbyist attorney closely associated with other republican administrations, so must be considered a form of White House insider. He is hardly an idependent voice from the opinion's of the White House, or an independent judge on issues presented to the court by the administration. And with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acting as the chief plaintiff in the assisted suicide case, this entire case smacks of an inside deal to shape public policy of the state of Oregon, of which a majority of Oregonians approved on the ballot, first by a 51%, then by a 60% margin. One of my former doctors is even a spokesman on the issue. What should be an issue of a state setting it's own medical policy, is now under debate to be federally regulated. The 10th Amendment apparently does not apply to Oregon in this case.
Roberts line of questioning on the issue involved questioning about the role of federal law as having a the leading role over state law. Yet when issues of abortion will face the court, then any attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, will not automaticly make all abortion illegal, but instead, will return the issue back to each state to decide. And that's the problem that I see. As Bush packs the Supreme Court with nominees such as Roberts, and Harriet Miers, someone who is even more directly associated with the White House, and was reportedly involved in help in suppression of questions about Bush's national guard service, then an inconsistent pattern of law will come from the Supreme Court in which some issues will be decided that are considered "states's rights" and other are decided as federal rights will be used merely to promote a conservative social policy line, rather than based on evidence found within the U.S. Constitution or Bill Of Rights used as the real master guide to decide all legal matters.
When Mr. Bush refers to the type of court nominee choices he intends to choose for the Supreme Court and for federal judgeships, he keeps echoing the same line of of choosing "conservative judges" and those who will "interpret the Constitution". Yet there appears to be little evidence that Roberts is actually "interpreting" the U.S. Constitution, as in regards to the 10th Amendment which gives some powers not specified as for the federal government to the states, rather it appears an attempt to find a line of reasoning to give the federal government power to regulate state medical policy is being reverse engineered to supress a state role in assisted suicide, another pet issue often associated with right to life organizations.
When other presidents have chosen other judicial nominees, the choice was based on finding those who were well qualified. But with Bush, shopping for an ideology, and only the "conservative" one seems the one, the only, and the most important qualification. Other past presidents, such as democrats didn't publicly state that only "liberal" justices would be considered to be nominated. And republican presidents such as Ford, Bush and Reagan all chose reasonably fair minded justices in many cases to fairly hear the cases that are presented before the Supreme Court. And conservative Websites constantly look for a purely ideological line to promote in the American court system, rather than a system based on a fair and impartial hearing of a case by all parties. In a case like the assisted suicide one from Oregon, in which the administration's own Attorney General is the plaintiff, and the new Chief Justice is a figure closely associated with republican administrations, the search for judges must be seen as one in which the conservative's goal for the American court system is to politicize it, and turn it into an ideological rubber stamp for more of their own personal opinions. This is a form of kangaroo court construction for the American justice system and highly unethical in my view. It is a classic American symbol that justice is often seen as carrying two scales, and blindfolded as well. The American justice system is supposed to be independent and fair. A fair arena where the least of American society can gain a fair hearing with the most powerful in an equal platform. It was never envisioned by the founding fathers that some political ideologues would seek to turn the american justice system into yet another political wing of government or a single ideology. I find this all deeply sad.
My personal opinions on abortion or assisted suicide don't matter as much, as my stronger feelings that the American court system is now being corrupted into yet another ideological tool by some who hold less than democratic views. This is now the greater moral evil.
With the court hearing on Oregon's assisted suicide issue, the questioning of John Roberts on the court took a sharp turn from the questioning of other justices, instead looking to identify with the same line of legal reasoning of Alberto Gonzales who is the plaintiff for the Justice Department's line on the assisted suicide issue. And this raises some ethical questions about the role of the court and the official policies of the Bush Administration. Roberts is a former corporate lobbyist attorney closely associated with other republican administrations, so must be considered a form of White House insider. He is hardly an idependent voice from the opinion's of the White House, or an independent judge on issues presented to the court by the administration. And with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acting as the chief plaintiff in the assisted suicide case, this entire case smacks of an inside deal to shape public policy of the state of Oregon, of which a majority of Oregonians approved on the ballot, first by a 51%, then by a 60% margin. One of my former doctors is even a spokesman on the issue. What should be an issue of a state setting it's own medical policy, is now under debate to be federally regulated. The 10th Amendment apparently does not apply to Oregon in this case.
Roberts line of questioning on the issue involved questioning about the role of federal law as having a the leading role over state law. Yet when issues of abortion will face the court, then any attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade, will not automaticly make all abortion illegal, but instead, will return the issue back to each state to decide. And that's the problem that I see. As Bush packs the Supreme Court with nominees such as Roberts, and Harriet Miers, someone who is even more directly associated with the White House, and was reportedly involved in help in suppression of questions about Bush's national guard service, then an inconsistent pattern of law will come from the Supreme Court in which some issues will be decided that are considered "states's rights" and other are decided as federal rights will be used merely to promote a conservative social policy line, rather than based on evidence found within the U.S. Constitution or Bill Of Rights used as the real master guide to decide all legal matters.
When Mr. Bush refers to the type of court nominee choices he intends to choose for the Supreme Court and for federal judgeships, he keeps echoing the same line of of choosing "conservative judges" and those who will "interpret the Constitution". Yet there appears to be little evidence that Roberts is actually "interpreting" the U.S. Constitution, as in regards to the 10th Amendment which gives some powers not specified as for the federal government to the states, rather it appears an attempt to find a line of reasoning to give the federal government power to regulate state medical policy is being reverse engineered to supress a state role in assisted suicide, another pet issue often associated with right to life organizations.
When other presidents have chosen other judicial nominees, the choice was based on finding those who were well qualified. But with Bush, shopping for an ideology, and only the "conservative" one seems the one, the only, and the most important qualification. Other past presidents, such as democrats didn't publicly state that only "liberal" justices would be considered to be nominated. And republican presidents such as Ford, Bush and Reagan all chose reasonably fair minded justices in many cases to fairly hear the cases that are presented before the Supreme Court. And conservative Websites constantly look for a purely ideological line to promote in the American court system, rather than a system based on a fair and impartial hearing of a case by all parties. In a case like the assisted suicide one from Oregon, in which the administration's own Attorney General is the plaintiff, and the new Chief Justice is a figure closely associated with republican administrations, the search for judges must be seen as one in which the conservative's goal for the American court system is to politicize it, and turn it into an ideological rubber stamp for more of their own personal opinions. This is a form of kangaroo court construction for the American justice system and highly unethical in my view. It is a classic American symbol that justice is often seen as carrying two scales, and blindfolded as well. The American justice system is supposed to be independent and fair. A fair arena where the least of American society can gain a fair hearing with the most powerful in an equal platform. It was never envisioned by the founding fathers that some political ideologues would seek to turn the american justice system into yet another political wing of government or a single ideology. I find this all deeply sad.
My personal opinions on abortion or assisted suicide don't matter as much, as my stronger feelings that the American court system is now being corrupted into yet another ideological tool by some who hold less than democratic views. This is now the greater moral evil.
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
Toyota Sets A Positive Challenge For A Better World
Last night I saw a new ad by Toyota that offers one of the most positive challenges to the industrial world yet. It offers all the benefits of cleaning up the air by the development of more hybrid automobiles. I can't remember seeing such a positive and uplifting vision of the world as promotted in this ad. No politician has ever made me so hepeful for a positive future as this ad can promote. This ad is just plain wonderful.
Next to heaven on earth, the vision of a society free of as much pollution as possible where all persons can go for a walk or play outside, live longer, have less health problems, is a grand vision for a great new way of life. Cities may be crowded, yet the air would be better than in decades. A person could go outside and take a breath of fresh air. And the world dependence on oil could be reduced if most new vehicles were based on hybrid technology.
But more advances towards clean air could be undertaken as well. More electric, less gas lawnmowers. A ban on all public smoking, except in the privately owned home of the individual. Less smokey backyard barbeque units. More electrically heated homes, less ones that burn oil. More older homes retrofitted to burn clean hydrogen, where only harmless water vapor, not smoke is the exhaust product. Less smokey fireplaces, or burning wood or old pallets.
Toyota presented a great vision for a wonderful world where illness such as cancer and asthma could be greatly reduced. People could live much happier without constant health problems from so much unnecessary sinus, lung , throat, tongue or other painful chronic pollution caused problems, or the need for the daily use of decongestants or allergy preparations. Instead of a chronic escalation of illnesses that alarm the Surgeon General and others, Toyota offers a vision where life actually improves, not worsens.
I think society should embrace this high standard that Toyota offered in the ad. The benefits are too great to ignore this challenge, and the mitigation of so much pollution caused suffering, illness and more full enjoyment of life cannot be ignored. This ad is just plain terrific.
Next to heaven on earth, the vision of a society free of as much pollution as possible where all persons can go for a walk or play outside, live longer, have less health problems, is a grand vision for a great new way of life. Cities may be crowded, yet the air would be better than in decades. A person could go outside and take a breath of fresh air. And the world dependence on oil could be reduced if most new vehicles were based on hybrid technology.
But more advances towards clean air could be undertaken as well. More electric, less gas lawnmowers. A ban on all public smoking, except in the privately owned home of the individual. Less smokey backyard barbeque units. More electrically heated homes, less ones that burn oil. More older homes retrofitted to burn clean hydrogen, where only harmless water vapor, not smoke is the exhaust product. Less smokey fireplaces, or burning wood or old pallets.
Toyota presented a great vision for a wonderful world where illness such as cancer and asthma could be greatly reduced. People could live much happier without constant health problems from so much unnecessary sinus, lung , throat, tongue or other painful chronic pollution caused problems, or the need for the daily use of decongestants or allergy preparations. Instead of a chronic escalation of illnesses that alarm the Surgeon General and others, Toyota offers a vision where life actually improves, not worsens.
I think society should embrace this high standard that Toyota offered in the ad. The benefits are too great to ignore this challenge, and the mitigation of so much pollution caused suffering, illness and more full enjoyment of life cannot be ignored. This ad is just plain terrific.
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Who Is Harriet Miers
Harriet Miers is a woman of great achievement in the world of law on one hand. But on the other hand, who is she?
This 60 year old, never married former head of the Texas Bar no doubt is a top attorney. And Harry Reid, the prolife Democratic leader in the Senate even suggested her as a possible choice. Miers even was a former democrat, and even contributed to Al Gore before.
But the Pastor of Harriet Miers paints an image of a "born again" Christian, who is certainly prolife. This choice will certainly be more prolife than Sandra Day O'Connor who allowed the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 to hang together by a thread. The vote of Miers on the bench will almost certainly overturn Roe v. Wade when an important case challenges legal abortion in the nation. This will satisfy the prolife community in America, but will will also create an angry divided response among the prochoice community. However some countries such as Ireland and Germany have long had antiabortion prolife laws on the books.
And in other areas, Miers may well be more of a social conservative than even Roberts. On issues such as Gay Marriage, Freedom Of Speech, Assisted Suicide, and other areas, she will no doubt be less flexible in her opinion than the procorporate lobbyist attorney Roberts is.
Roberts represents a form of procorporate conservatism, while Miers is more of a social conservative.
Just like progressives come in different shades as well, Miers is the type of conservative that will more than satisfy the goals of social conservatives who feel that imposing their will on others is very important. Simply living a life according to certain values is not merely enough for them, it is important to them that all of society reflects their vision as well.
It is a funny thing that despite the major influence of books, music, movies, and culture, as well even beloved Gay entertainers such as Ellen or Rosie, that social conservatives actually wield so much power to impose their social vision on others. Social conservatives are convinced that those they disagree with are either immoral, Godless, or stupid. Yet there is so much of a spirit of latter-day phariseeism in this spirit. Social liberald don't seek to impose their view of cu;ture on others, only to have the right to enjoy a culture they create and enjoy. A social conservative is much like if a person likes vanilla ice cream, and seeks to ban chocolate ice cream because it's different than vanilla. There is nothing inherently immoral with chocolate, it's only a different choice. And some such Jimmy Swaggart and John Hagee still continue to attack rock music for example, misaligning all of it with the worst of evils.
How far Harriet Miers will walk down this cultural conservatism path is not known. But she's certainly an ally to social conservatives. Those who are merely prolife, but support cultural openess may find that Harriet Miers will not be their favorite justice on the bench. And those full blown progressives, may be deeply upset at her role on the court. Why some conservatives are so critical of her at this point doesn't seem to make too much sense. She's certainly more of a cultural conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor, and will be a great ally in their vision to rubber stamp their views as the law of the land.
This 60 year old, never married former head of the Texas Bar no doubt is a top attorney. And Harry Reid, the prolife Democratic leader in the Senate even suggested her as a possible choice. Miers even was a former democrat, and even contributed to Al Gore before.
But the Pastor of Harriet Miers paints an image of a "born again" Christian, who is certainly prolife. This choice will certainly be more prolife than Sandra Day O'Connor who allowed the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 to hang together by a thread. The vote of Miers on the bench will almost certainly overturn Roe v. Wade when an important case challenges legal abortion in the nation. This will satisfy the prolife community in America, but will will also create an angry divided response among the prochoice community. However some countries such as Ireland and Germany have long had antiabortion prolife laws on the books.
And in other areas, Miers may well be more of a social conservative than even Roberts. On issues such as Gay Marriage, Freedom Of Speech, Assisted Suicide, and other areas, she will no doubt be less flexible in her opinion than the procorporate lobbyist attorney Roberts is.
Roberts represents a form of procorporate conservatism, while Miers is more of a social conservative.
Just like progressives come in different shades as well, Miers is the type of conservative that will more than satisfy the goals of social conservatives who feel that imposing their will on others is very important. Simply living a life according to certain values is not merely enough for them, it is important to them that all of society reflects their vision as well.
It is a funny thing that despite the major influence of books, music, movies, and culture, as well even beloved Gay entertainers such as Ellen or Rosie, that social conservatives actually wield so much power to impose their social vision on others. Social conservatives are convinced that those they disagree with are either immoral, Godless, or stupid. Yet there is so much of a spirit of latter-day phariseeism in this spirit. Social liberald don't seek to impose their view of cu;ture on others, only to have the right to enjoy a culture they create and enjoy. A social conservative is much like if a person likes vanilla ice cream, and seeks to ban chocolate ice cream because it's different than vanilla. There is nothing inherently immoral with chocolate, it's only a different choice. And some such Jimmy Swaggart and John Hagee still continue to attack rock music for example, misaligning all of it with the worst of evils.
How far Harriet Miers will walk down this cultural conservatism path is not known. But she's certainly an ally to social conservatives. Those who are merely prolife, but support cultural openess may find that Harriet Miers will not be their favorite justice on the bench. And those full blown progressives, may be deeply upset at her role on the court. Why some conservatives are so critical of her at this point doesn't seem to make too much sense. She's certainly more of a cultural conservative than Sandra Day O'Connor, and will be a great ally in their vision to rubber stamp their views as the law of the land.
Monday, October 3, 2005
The Electoral College Is Over-Representative Of Small States
The 2004 election was a little different than most, in that democrat John Kerry won many small states in New England. But most often in national elections, democratic candidates are somewhat less likely to win election because small states that tend to vote republican are over-represented in the electoral college.
Little Montana, with a population of 926,865, has three electoral votes, which means that one electoral vote represents 308,955 persons. And little Idaho, with 4 electoral votes, has a population of 1,393,292 persons, which means that one electoral vote represents 348,250 persons. Many other small states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah , and others with smaller populations which are likely to vote republican are over-represented in the electoral college.
Large states, including the big industrial states that tend to vote democratic, are under-represented in electoral votes. California with a population of 35,899,799 has 55 electoral votes, or one per 652,709 persons. And New York with 31 electoral votes, has a population of 19,277,088, or one electoral vote per 621,838 persons. This means that each vote cast in a small state like Montana has twice the electoral colege weight of a vote cast in big democratic leaning states such as California and New York.
This inbuilt bias in the electoral college towards small states that tend to vote republican has helped to elect three republicans who lost the popular vote. No democrat has ever been elected by the electoral college that lost the popular vote, only republicans, because of this inbuilt advantage in the electoral college. In 1876, and again in the failed re-election of Grover Cleveland to republican Benjamin Harrison, and with the electoral vote loss of Al Gore in 2000, to republican George Bush who lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes nationwide. George Bush was the only one of the three republicans elected by the electoral college who lost the popular vote who was re-elected.
It would have been thought that after each of these flawed elections in which a candidate who lost the popular vote was able to claim a technical victory in the electoral college that some reform of the system would have been expected. But even in the very disputed 2000 election, too much critical view was aimed at the flawed election in Florida, and the electoral college itself was not questioned or reformed.
Instead of being based on population like the seats in congress roughly are, in which every state can have no less than one representative, two electoral votes are added to the every state equal to the number of senators, and this helps to bias the system towards more power to small states that tend to vote republican.
The election system isn't really based on majority rule for presidential elections, instead the votes of small states have nearly twice the clout of the votes of larger states because of the inbuilt bias of the electoral college that over-represents the votes of these small states and tends to benefit republican presidential candidates. America seems to want to promote "democracy" around the world. Yet democracy in America is deeply flawed. And despite the flawed election in 1876, change has never come to the electoral college, so three republican candidates who lost the popular vote were able to claim victories because of the electoral college and the bias towards too much clout to small states that tends to benefit republican presidential candidates.
Little Montana, with a population of 926,865, has three electoral votes, which means that one electoral vote represents 308,955 persons. And little Idaho, with 4 electoral votes, has a population of 1,393,292 persons, which means that one electoral vote represents 348,250 persons. Many other small states such as Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah , and others with smaller populations which are likely to vote republican are over-represented in the electoral college.
Large states, including the big industrial states that tend to vote democratic, are under-represented in electoral votes. California with a population of 35,899,799 has 55 electoral votes, or one per 652,709 persons. And New York with 31 electoral votes, has a population of 19,277,088, or one electoral vote per 621,838 persons. This means that each vote cast in a small state like Montana has twice the electoral colege weight of a vote cast in big democratic leaning states such as California and New York.
This inbuilt bias in the electoral college towards small states that tend to vote republican has helped to elect three republicans who lost the popular vote. No democrat has ever been elected by the electoral college that lost the popular vote, only republicans, because of this inbuilt advantage in the electoral college. In 1876, and again in the failed re-election of Grover Cleveland to republican Benjamin Harrison, and with the electoral vote loss of Al Gore in 2000, to republican George Bush who lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes nationwide. George Bush was the only one of the three republicans elected by the electoral college who lost the popular vote who was re-elected.
It would have been thought that after each of these flawed elections in which a candidate who lost the popular vote was able to claim a technical victory in the electoral college that some reform of the system would have been expected. But even in the very disputed 2000 election, too much critical view was aimed at the flawed election in Florida, and the electoral college itself was not questioned or reformed.
Instead of being based on population like the seats in congress roughly are, in which every state can have no less than one representative, two electoral votes are added to the every state equal to the number of senators, and this helps to bias the system towards more power to small states that tend to vote republican.
The election system isn't really based on majority rule for presidential elections, instead the votes of small states have nearly twice the clout of the votes of larger states because of the inbuilt bias of the electoral college that over-represents the votes of these small states and tends to benefit republican presidential candidates. America seems to want to promote "democracy" around the world. Yet democracy in America is deeply flawed. And despite the flawed election in 1876, change has never come to the electoral college, so three republican candidates who lost the popular vote were able to claim victories because of the electoral college and the bias towards too much clout to small states that tends to benefit republican presidential candidates.
Sunday, October 2, 2005
More Setbacks For The American Efforts In Iraq
When the United States decided to commit itself to the Iraq War effort and brought a number of opposition groups into power in Iraq, it was expected that these opposition groups would do a little of the "heavy lifting" of bringing Iraq together as a reconstructed modern democratic MidEast state. Yet more and more evidence exists that America is bogged down in a military effort in which little ambition on the part of many in Iraq, including the government are willing to put in the effort to do the necessary things to make Iraq work as a state that can stand independent on it's own, and American troops can eventually leave.
A couple months ago, out of the claimed 147,000 Iraqi soldiers that were claimed to be in training from the U.S. by Gen. Richard Myers, it turned out that only 3 battlions, of just 2,000 Iraqi troops were considered to be combat ready to stand on their own without American support to battle insurgent offensives. Now this figure has sunk down to only one Iraqi battlion that is combat ready, of just 700 Iraqi troops. The other battlions either lack the necessary skills, manpower, willpower, training, moltivation or other skills to be able to confront insurgent threats on their own without America support. More and more, it is beginning to look like the failed Vietnamization efforts in theVietnam War, in which little drive, moltivation, or other skills of soldiers of the South compared to the highly disciplined forces of the NVA(North Vietnamese Army) and the Viet Cong fighters. America's ticket out of Iraq is for the patriotic and nationalistic sentiments of the Iraqi people to seek to defend their own nation. Without this, America cannot leave Iraq on it's own. Otherwise insurgent forces would quickly overthrow the government in Iraq and make at least a terrorist state in the Sunni areas, and possiby Iran would control the Shiite areas in some manner, and the Kurdish North would become a threat to Turkey to establish some state of Kurdistan.
And within the government in Iraq, many armed members of militia groups hold power, and there is no moltivation to disarm such organizations as the Badr Brigade, which comprises 15,000 armed members. 120 armed members of this organization recently overthrew the secular mayor of Baghdad, and replaced him with a Badr Brigade militia member. And this armed militia controls a number of important seats within the government of Iraq, as well as six provincial governorships. And in the North, the Kurds have a militia comprised of 100,000 members. And the radical cleric Sadr has a radical armed militia that act on his behalf and have frequent military showdowns with the American forces. There is no effort by the government to disarm any of these of the other armed militia groups within Iraq by the government. In fact just the opposite, the government of Iraq sometimes even complements militias such as the Badr Brigade for their efforts.
This month will be a vote on the constitution for Iraq. Instead of a genuine spirit of unity to make Iraq a nation united together, the Shiites and Kurds used the process to essentially divide the oil assets of Iraq among themselves, in a sort of "divorce papers" arrangement to split Iraq along ethnic lines and leave the Sunni ethnic group in Iraq with little but the sand of Iraq, and no oil assets. This failure to compromise with the Sunni minority, as well as writing a document not really intended to cement Iraq together as a single state for the future of a single united state of Iraq prove a real lack of moltivation on the part of Iraqi government to write a serious document intended to glue Iraq together. In 1920, after the British defeat of the Turks of the Ottoman Empire, Winston Churchill drew up a map in a hotel room that combined three ethinic groups of the defeated Ottoman Empire together under British control and created Iraq. Britain then occupied this region until the 1958 rebellion in Iraq, which caused Britain to lose power and leave Iraq. Today Iraq remains as divided as ever. The Iraqi constitution is likely to be defeated by the Sunni voters, or to even spur civil war in Iraq. This country cannot even discipline itself well enough to write a serious constitution.
Given all of the problems in Iraq, it seems very unlikely that Iraq will remain a single state in the future, and terrorists are likely to control at least the Sunni regions and become a new threat in the MidEast unless the U.S. military presense in Iraq remains. With all of the problems in Iraq, it seems unlikely that a good outcome in Iraq is likely by the various powers within Iraq, unless the U.S. keeps some semblence of order. Just like Gen. Colin Powell who was concerned about the Pottery Barn rule, "you break it, you bought it", America has bought Iraq, and cannot seem to get rid of it. And breaking Iraq has cost the U.S. nearly $200 billion, and over 1,900 American lives. Too many in Iraq are just not willing to do the "heavy lifting" to make Iraq work as a nation.
A couple months ago, out of the claimed 147,000 Iraqi soldiers that were claimed to be in training from the U.S. by Gen. Richard Myers, it turned out that only 3 battlions, of just 2,000 Iraqi troops were considered to be combat ready to stand on their own without American support to battle insurgent offensives. Now this figure has sunk down to only one Iraqi battlion that is combat ready, of just 700 Iraqi troops. The other battlions either lack the necessary skills, manpower, willpower, training, moltivation or other skills to be able to confront insurgent threats on their own without America support. More and more, it is beginning to look like the failed Vietnamization efforts in theVietnam War, in which little drive, moltivation, or other skills of soldiers of the South compared to the highly disciplined forces of the NVA(North Vietnamese Army) and the Viet Cong fighters. America's ticket out of Iraq is for the patriotic and nationalistic sentiments of the Iraqi people to seek to defend their own nation. Without this, America cannot leave Iraq on it's own. Otherwise insurgent forces would quickly overthrow the government in Iraq and make at least a terrorist state in the Sunni areas, and possiby Iran would control the Shiite areas in some manner, and the Kurdish North would become a threat to Turkey to establish some state of Kurdistan.
And within the government in Iraq, many armed members of militia groups hold power, and there is no moltivation to disarm such organizations as the Badr Brigade, which comprises 15,000 armed members. 120 armed members of this organization recently overthrew the secular mayor of Baghdad, and replaced him with a Badr Brigade militia member. And this armed militia controls a number of important seats within the government of Iraq, as well as six provincial governorships. And in the North, the Kurds have a militia comprised of 100,000 members. And the radical cleric Sadr has a radical armed militia that act on his behalf and have frequent military showdowns with the American forces. There is no effort by the government to disarm any of these of the other armed militia groups within Iraq by the government. In fact just the opposite, the government of Iraq sometimes even complements militias such as the Badr Brigade for their efforts.
This month will be a vote on the constitution for Iraq. Instead of a genuine spirit of unity to make Iraq a nation united together, the Shiites and Kurds used the process to essentially divide the oil assets of Iraq among themselves, in a sort of "divorce papers" arrangement to split Iraq along ethnic lines and leave the Sunni ethnic group in Iraq with little but the sand of Iraq, and no oil assets. This failure to compromise with the Sunni minority, as well as writing a document not really intended to cement Iraq together as a single state for the future of a single united state of Iraq prove a real lack of moltivation on the part of Iraqi government to write a serious document intended to glue Iraq together. In 1920, after the British defeat of the Turks of the Ottoman Empire, Winston Churchill drew up a map in a hotel room that combined three ethinic groups of the defeated Ottoman Empire together under British control and created Iraq. Britain then occupied this region until the 1958 rebellion in Iraq, which caused Britain to lose power and leave Iraq. Today Iraq remains as divided as ever. The Iraqi constitution is likely to be defeated by the Sunni voters, or to even spur civil war in Iraq. This country cannot even discipline itself well enough to write a serious constitution.
Given all of the problems in Iraq, it seems very unlikely that Iraq will remain a single state in the future, and terrorists are likely to control at least the Sunni regions and become a new threat in the MidEast unless the U.S. military presense in Iraq remains. With all of the problems in Iraq, it seems unlikely that a good outcome in Iraq is likely by the various powers within Iraq, unless the U.S. keeps some semblence of order. Just like Gen. Colin Powell who was concerned about the Pottery Barn rule, "you break it, you bought it", America has bought Iraq, and cannot seem to get rid of it. And breaking Iraq has cost the U.S. nearly $200 billion, and over 1,900 American lives. Too many in Iraq are just not willing to do the "heavy lifting" to make Iraq work as a nation.
Saturday, October 1, 2005
Conservatives Behaving Badly
By any honest assessment, last week was a rotten week for conservatives. Often by their own sword did they manage to fall on their own words and deeds, and play up to the very worst of conservative stereotypes of unethical handling of finances and closet racism. By any reasonable standard and objective account, conservatives were terrible advocates for their philosophy last week.
Tom Delay managed to embroil himself in yet another scandal last week, when charged with a felony after an Austin Texas grand jury voted for an indictment that Delay used his Washington PAC in a scheme where corporations such as Sears donated funds to his PAC, and then the corporate donation money was laundered returned back to Texas to be earmarked to help specific republicans running for the Texas legislature to gain a majority in the state house of representatives. Under Texas law, it is a felony for corporations to donate campaign contributions to state candidates. And it is likely that many republicans supported this bill while in legislature in Texas, and probably signed into law by a republican governor as well. A felony seems like very tough penalty for violating this campaign law, and if Mr. Delay is found in violation, the penalty may involve jail or prison time as well as a fine.
Bill Frist, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader, managed to make himself seem like the Martha Stewart of senate politics, and shot a huge hole through any presidential ambitions by a new question into whether he sold some stock that was supposed to be in a blind trust before the price dropped, and raised eyebrows whether he had some sort of inside information on the stock and sold it before an issue would depress the market price. This raises so many questions, that Bill Frist's presidential ambitions may be toast now.
Former Reagan era, Secretary of Education, William Bennett made an absurd statement on his radio program, by making an outrageous comparison that crime could be reduced if all Black babies were aborted. Of course Mr. Bennett did not mean the statement literally, and coupled it with a comment about that such a thing would be immoral and wrong. But it did raise questions of closet racism by Bennett, of equating Blacks with crime, and the genocidal statement of aborting all Black children seemed almost Nazi-like in nature. Even the White House was quick to condemn this stupid comparison statement by Bennett. Bennett usually represents something of an intellectual wing of the republican party, and for the former Education Secretary, this statement hardly seemed very educated or enlightened, and raised questions of closet racism.
This week's conservative idiocy , built on recent absurdity by others such as Rev. Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of democratically elected President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, then tried to deny the statement was made, but then later issued a statement that he was sorry about the comment. The only reason this comment didn't create a worse international crisis is that Venezuela is a major oil supplier to the U.S. and the has 14,000 Citgo gas stations in America, and could not immediately sever econmic ties to the U.S.
During the hurricane Katrina disater, conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh tried to deflect blame from the federal government, FEMA and President Bush, by attacks on the democratic mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin. Rush Limbaugh committed a so-called Freudian slip by calling this Black mayor, "Mayor Nagger" on the air. Whether this was intended to appeal to the right wing racist audience that is attracted to even worse right wing "hate" radio hosts, or a mere slip on the air is not really known. But with allegations of prescription drug abuse that have clouded his character, Rush Limbaugh is hardly a figure to be admired.
Fox News and Radio commentator, Bill O'Reilly is quick to attack what he calls "culture war" issues, yet a 2004 scandal involving O'Reilly 55, and a 33 year old female co-worker who brought a sexual harassment suit against O'Reilly claiming lewd phone calls from O'Reilly with talk that involved phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation and loss of virginity, became the material for jokes by late night comedians such as Conan O'Brien. For many, O'Reilly now has little standing when he argues about so-called culture war issues. The Allegations involved in the suit against O'Reilly pulled the rug out from his attacks on mainstream movies and music, and hollow out his "culture wars" attacks into meaningless radio talk show hypocrisy.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is using his role as Attorney General to wage a "war on porn", most likely to enhance his role as a possible Supreme Court candidate to many doubting conservatives. This diverts funds and manpower away from the war on terrorism, illegal immigration of violent gang and criminal organization members or even terrorists, money laundering by drug kingpins, and public official corruption, especially in the Miami area. Many newspapers and columnists such as Arianna Huffington have been highly critical of this new Bush Administration policy as a waste of money as well as a moralistic attack that is misdirected. And the cost of so many expensive bizarre and crazy Bush Administration policies is partly putting Katrina relief costs in a real budget bind. While it appears that most of material that will be targeted is oddball weird stuff far out of the mainstream such as kooky bondage material, this begs the question that if a Web search for such rare, oddball and weird material must be undertaken, then the Internet is hardly overwelmed by such crazy and disturbed, offensive material, so such an expensive war on these nonmainstream adult entertainment Websites will not satisfy the far right who are opposed to the huge supply of much more common supply of mainstream and commercial sleaze on the Internet. This hardly satisfies the concerns of those about the huge mainstream of the sexually eplicit material that is all over the Internet or invades the homes of persons in an unwanted manner through unsolicited spam Emails. The Gonzales "war on porn" makes one wonder why he is so concerned for such rare and oddball material that is probably more difficult to find on the Internet without a long search or tips where to even find such odd fetish material, and children under 18 are highly unlikely to be exposed to compared to the huge supply of far more mainstream and far easier for children to access very explicit material. Organizations such as Morality in Media, Focus On The Family, and other groups are concerned about this huge supply of such explicit material, yet this is not the target. The Bush/Gonzales "war on porn" will not satisfy the far right, creates some late night comedy jokes about the Bush Administration which looks like the workings of moral hypocrites because of so-many unresolved issues such as questions about the Iraq War or Karl Rove and hurts public support, and offends civil libertarians who take an absolute view of the wording of the First Amendment and those who support freedom of expression. Most men, and probably women have visited sexually oriented sites on the Internet, and this even includes church goers and preachers as well, and little evidence exists of a public demand to remove such sites, rather such sites are part of a $10 billion dollar industry that much of the public seems to support in some way. And even major hotel chains and companies profit from cable porn and other material. When the Bush Administration wants to put an oddball bondage Website operator in prison for 50 years, but Bush Administration figures like Karl Rove and others seemingly avoid justice in the minds of some democrats and progressives, then more resentment brews against the Bush Administration. When a female reporter is jailed for 88 days protecting a White House source that leaked a CIA operatives name, and nothing happens at the White House where the leak originated, then resentment builds.
Conservatives wanted power in Washington. But with this power in the Presidency, Senate, House, Supreme Court and the bulk of talk radio, conservatives seem unable to govern the nation effectively with the power they have. Conservatives are far better at constructing petty and meaningless attacks on liberals and democrats by name calling or any means that avoids a discussion of the issues. And numerous and building ethics and character questions are painting an image of conservatives as moral hypocrites and that America's experiment with a conservative government has failed, and it's time for a change to a more progressive direction in the near future in elections.
Tom Delay managed to embroil himself in yet another scandal last week, when charged with a felony after an Austin Texas grand jury voted for an indictment that Delay used his Washington PAC in a scheme where corporations such as Sears donated funds to his PAC, and then the corporate donation money was laundered returned back to Texas to be earmarked to help specific republicans running for the Texas legislature to gain a majority in the state house of representatives. Under Texas law, it is a felony for corporations to donate campaign contributions to state candidates. And it is likely that many republicans supported this bill while in legislature in Texas, and probably signed into law by a republican governor as well. A felony seems like very tough penalty for violating this campaign law, and if Mr. Delay is found in violation, the penalty may involve jail or prison time as well as a fine.
Bill Frist, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader, managed to make himself seem like the Martha Stewart of senate politics, and shot a huge hole through any presidential ambitions by a new question into whether he sold some stock that was supposed to be in a blind trust before the price dropped, and raised eyebrows whether he had some sort of inside information on the stock and sold it before an issue would depress the market price. This raises so many questions, that Bill Frist's presidential ambitions may be toast now.
Former Reagan era, Secretary of Education, William Bennett made an absurd statement on his radio program, by making an outrageous comparison that crime could be reduced if all Black babies were aborted. Of course Mr. Bennett did not mean the statement literally, and coupled it with a comment about that such a thing would be immoral and wrong. But it did raise questions of closet racism by Bennett, of equating Blacks with crime, and the genocidal statement of aborting all Black children seemed almost Nazi-like in nature. Even the White House was quick to condemn this stupid comparison statement by Bennett. Bennett usually represents something of an intellectual wing of the republican party, and for the former Education Secretary, this statement hardly seemed very educated or enlightened, and raised questions of closet racism.
This week's conservative idiocy , built on recent absurdity by others such as Rev. Pat Robertson, who called for the assassination of democratically elected President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, then tried to deny the statement was made, but then later issued a statement that he was sorry about the comment. The only reason this comment didn't create a worse international crisis is that Venezuela is a major oil supplier to the U.S. and the has 14,000 Citgo gas stations in America, and could not immediately sever econmic ties to the U.S.
During the hurricane Katrina disater, conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh tried to deflect blame from the federal government, FEMA and President Bush, by attacks on the democratic mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin. Rush Limbaugh committed a so-called Freudian slip by calling this Black mayor, "Mayor Nagger" on the air. Whether this was intended to appeal to the right wing racist audience that is attracted to even worse right wing "hate" radio hosts, or a mere slip on the air is not really known. But with allegations of prescription drug abuse that have clouded his character, Rush Limbaugh is hardly a figure to be admired.
Fox News and Radio commentator, Bill O'Reilly is quick to attack what he calls "culture war" issues, yet a 2004 scandal involving O'Reilly 55, and a 33 year old female co-worker who brought a sexual harassment suit against O'Reilly claiming lewd phone calls from O'Reilly with talk that involved phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation and loss of virginity, became the material for jokes by late night comedians such as Conan O'Brien. For many, O'Reilly now has little standing when he argues about so-called culture war issues. The Allegations involved in the suit against O'Reilly pulled the rug out from his attacks on mainstream movies and music, and hollow out his "culture wars" attacks into meaningless radio talk show hypocrisy.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is using his role as Attorney General to wage a "war on porn", most likely to enhance his role as a possible Supreme Court candidate to many doubting conservatives. This diverts funds and manpower away from the war on terrorism, illegal immigration of violent gang and criminal organization members or even terrorists, money laundering by drug kingpins, and public official corruption, especially in the Miami area. Many newspapers and columnists such as Arianna Huffington have been highly critical of this new Bush Administration policy as a waste of money as well as a moralistic attack that is misdirected. And the cost of so many expensive bizarre and crazy Bush Administration policies is partly putting Katrina relief costs in a real budget bind. While it appears that most of material that will be targeted is oddball weird stuff far out of the mainstream such as kooky bondage material, this begs the question that if a Web search for such rare, oddball and weird material must be undertaken, then the Internet is hardly overwelmed by such crazy and disturbed, offensive material, so such an expensive war on these nonmainstream adult entertainment Websites will not satisfy the far right who are opposed to the huge supply of much more common supply of mainstream and commercial sleaze on the Internet. This hardly satisfies the concerns of those about the huge mainstream of the sexually eplicit material that is all over the Internet or invades the homes of persons in an unwanted manner through unsolicited spam Emails. The Gonzales "war on porn" makes one wonder why he is so concerned for such rare and oddball material that is probably more difficult to find on the Internet without a long search or tips where to even find such odd fetish material, and children under 18 are highly unlikely to be exposed to compared to the huge supply of far more mainstream and far easier for children to access very explicit material. Organizations such as Morality in Media, Focus On The Family, and other groups are concerned about this huge supply of such explicit material, yet this is not the target. The Bush/Gonzales "war on porn" will not satisfy the far right, creates some late night comedy jokes about the Bush Administration which looks like the workings of moral hypocrites because of so-many unresolved issues such as questions about the Iraq War or Karl Rove and hurts public support, and offends civil libertarians who take an absolute view of the wording of the First Amendment and those who support freedom of expression. Most men, and probably women have visited sexually oriented sites on the Internet, and this even includes church goers and preachers as well, and little evidence exists of a public demand to remove such sites, rather such sites are part of a $10 billion dollar industry that much of the public seems to support in some way. And even major hotel chains and companies profit from cable porn and other material. When the Bush Administration wants to put an oddball bondage Website operator in prison for 50 years, but Bush Administration figures like Karl Rove and others seemingly avoid justice in the minds of some democrats and progressives, then more resentment brews against the Bush Administration. When a female reporter is jailed for 88 days protecting a White House source that leaked a CIA operatives name, and nothing happens at the White House where the leak originated, then resentment builds.
Conservatives wanted power in Washington. But with this power in the Presidency, Senate, House, Supreme Court and the bulk of talk radio, conservatives seem unable to govern the nation effectively with the power they have. Conservatives are far better at constructing petty and meaningless attacks on liberals and democrats by name calling or any means that avoids a discussion of the issues. And numerous and building ethics and character questions are painting an image of conservatives as moral hypocrites and that America's experiment with a conservative government has failed, and it's time for a change to a more progressive direction in the near future in elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)