As a conservative, I believe . . .
I believe in ethics, and the responsibilities of strong leadership. I am not a Democrat, but that doesn’t mean that I am willing to let Republicans get away with murder. I expect high ethical and moral standards from the members of the party, let alone the government, and anyone who commits fraud, or cronism; who lies, who shows incompetence, arrogance, insolence, or ignorance, is going down, no matter which party they are members of. Nobody pulls that kind of bull on my watch.
I believe that the federal government’s job is to handle things a country alone can handle.. There are things the government should stay out of. And there are things the government MUST get involved in. Anything that involves more than one state must be monitored, regulated, and, if necessary, punished by the federal government. That includes FEMA, FDA, and all the other alphabet agencies. I also believe that outside of keeping people from beating on each other, the government and courts should stay out of people’s lives. If a man sin, that is between him and God, and he shall pay for it in time. If it doesn’t lower property values or keep people up at night, then people should be able to do it without the neighborhood watch getting involved.
At the same time, I know that these rights stop at the doorstep, and that those who insist on committing unsavory acts in public should be committed.
I believe in business. Anarchy is not business, nor is piracy. I will not call Ken Lay a businessman. He is a grifter, and anyone who supports him is no friend of mine, no matter what politics he claims to follow. The markets can operate without handouts, but not without regulators to keep the con artists and thieves at bay. Only a fool would try to do business in a thoroughly unregulated market – even the grifters would end up robbed.
I believe in fiscal responsibility. This doesn’t necessarily mean pinching pennies, but it does mean not spending what you don’t have unless you have an idea how to earn it.
I believe in conservation. Only a fool fails to care for his property. A conservative conserves. He keeps his cities in good repair and looks after the trash regularly. Like a boy scout, he leaves nothing but footprints and he doesn’t harm the wildlife, so that others can share what he has shared. The greedy and the pompous are prevented from ruining it for the rest of us.
I believe in civilization. Civilization is where people live and work together, as equals, in harmony. That means you treat people with respect, even if you don’t like them. It means no special treatment for any group, minority or majority. It means saying “I think you’re wrong” without 1-6 epithets mixed in.
I believe in truth. The saddest thing about the information age is the lack of information. They started by saying the moon shot was faked, and have gone on to disbelieve anything the cameras pick up that doesn’t fit their worldview.
I believe that our sense of duty should be equal to any sense of entitlement. This doesn’t mean blind obedience, or of universal enlistment. Is does mean picking up litter, voting in every election, keeping abreast of the news, and doing everything you can to keep your little part of the world sane, safe, and comfortable.
I believe in cooperation. The world is too close now, in every way. The lesson of 9/11 is that we can no longer ignore other cultures and nations. We cannot just disband the UN and sit behind our Minutemen. We have to play a part in this world. If we try to hide, the world will come and get us - in a 747, if necessary.
And finally, I believe in God. I believe that we were put on this world to test our moral fiber. I believe we are failing. From littering to the Seven Deadly Sins, we are breaking His rules without remorse. Worse, we are attaching our own prejudices to Him, crediting out most obnoxious words and deeds to His will.
This I believe – that we can do better, and that it is our duty as conservatives to make things better. It is our job to remind people of the greatness of the past, and to carefully consider the path of tomorrow.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
I've been cruising the Conservative blogs for the last few hours, and I've learned an important rule.
Treat with suspicion anyone who uses the term "moonbat".
The word has become the touchstone for the right wing wannabes. Anybody who wants to gain respect, and has nothing to say, just quotes a news story under a title like "Moonbats at it again!"
To all you moonbat folk - read Victor David Hanson.
Read how he analyzes an event, points out the left wing fallacies, and then, actually suggests solutions.
See how he does it using proper English, without resorting to invective. see him try to improve the situation, instead of inflame it.
This is what your blog should be like. It is what my blog would be like if I had the insider information he has. As it is, I try to make intelligent points according to the facts as they are presented to me, and I refrain from name calling.
After all, I am wrong a lot.
Treat with suspicion anyone who uses the term "moonbat".
The word has become the touchstone for the right wing wannabes. Anybody who wants to gain respect, and has nothing to say, just quotes a news story under a title like "Moonbats at it again!"
To all you moonbat folk - read Victor David Hanson.
Read how he analyzes an event, points out the left wing fallacies, and then, actually suggests solutions.
See how he does it using proper English, without resorting to invective. see him try to improve the situation, instead of inflame it.
This is what your blog should be like. It is what my blog would be like if I had the insider information he has. As it is, I try to make intelligent points according to the facts as they are presented to me, and I refrain from name calling.
After all, I am wrong a lot.
Small Towns are more American. Why don’t they ever run polls in small towns?
Question - Who lives in cities?
1) The immigrants. Immigrants are people who have been raised with different beliefs. Yes, they have taken the oath of allegiance, and most of them have done so in good faith. But that doesn’t mean that they understand American values, or that they would believe in them. Small town folk, on the other hand, are second and third, maybe fourth generation Americans. They are as native as Norman Rockwell models, immersed in the culture.
2) The Trangients. Here are high level executives who spend this week in New York, fly to a meeting in Singapore, and while there participate in teleconferencing with 5 other nations. Their money’s in the Bahamas, their house is in Italy . . . what do they care what happens to America? So long as they get enough warning to cash out their US dollars, they wouldn’t care if the whole country collapsed. They’d buy up the real estate cheap and sell it to Mexico. Small town folk, on the other hand, are invested in America. They have lived their whole lives in those towns, just like their parents. They aren’t going anywhere. Their decisions, their wants, flow from a desire, a need, to keep their America strong, safe, and prosperous.
3) The Urban Poor. These poor souls only have one thing on their mind – becoming the urban rich. No body cares about them, and they care for nobody but themselves. Small town folks never get that poor. They have friends who help out. They know the value of community, and of the Nation.
Next time you want to know what’s best for America, don’t ask a corporate flunky with no stake in a country. Don’t ask an immigrant who barely knows what America means. Don’t ask the poor, to whom America is a money teat, or nothing at all.
Go to a small town. Ask one of us.
Question - Who lives in cities?
1) The immigrants. Immigrants are people who have been raised with different beliefs. Yes, they have taken the oath of allegiance, and most of them have done so in good faith. But that doesn’t mean that they understand American values, or that they would believe in them. Small town folk, on the other hand, are second and third, maybe fourth generation Americans. They are as native as Norman Rockwell models, immersed in the culture.
2) The Trangients. Here are high level executives who spend this week in New York, fly to a meeting in Singapore, and while there participate in teleconferencing with 5 other nations. Their money’s in the Bahamas, their house is in Italy . . . what do they care what happens to America? So long as they get enough warning to cash out their US dollars, they wouldn’t care if the whole country collapsed. They’d buy up the real estate cheap and sell it to Mexico. Small town folk, on the other hand, are invested in America. They have lived their whole lives in those towns, just like their parents. They aren’t going anywhere. Their decisions, their wants, flow from a desire, a need, to keep their America strong, safe, and prosperous.
3) The Urban Poor. These poor souls only have one thing on their mind – becoming the urban rich. No body cares about them, and they care for nobody but themselves. Small town folks never get that poor. They have friends who help out. They know the value of community, and of the Nation.
Next time you want to know what’s best for America, don’t ask a corporate flunky with no stake in a country. Don’t ask an immigrant who barely knows what America means. Don’t ask the poor, to whom America is a money teat, or nothing at all.
Go to a small town. Ask one of us.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
I just spent the day moving my wife’s grandmother into a retirement home – the one I work at. For the first time, I have seen how much work it is to get someone placed in the system.
The system is badly in need of revision. It is understaffed, over-bureaucratted, and way too interested in money. I understand earning a profit, and I am all in favor of doing so, but this system is straight out of the Ebenezar Scrooge Wring Each Dollar Out Of The Sucker school of economics. This is a system where management doesn’t smile because there’s no way to charge people for receiving them.
My wife’s grandmother was a part of the generation that made this nation great. She is part of the generation that beat Hitler, rebuilt the economy after the Depression, and created the lap of luxury that the Boomers are currently sitting in.
We owe them better than this. Charging them 3 star hotel prices for a single room and meals is too much.
This is why I don’t trust corporations. They aren’t interested in real people.
This is why we need Governments - to regulate, and to enforce regulations.
Sure, we can leave the markets to sort themselves out. It worked great in Tombstone, Arizona, back before the Earps.
Is that the kind of America people want? No rules, the strong eat the weak? There are countries like that, you know. They have armed rebellions every few months because without enforced laws, there is only one way for the common people to deal with the grifters and the misers.
I for one do not want our system to degenerate into a Darwinian hell where people steal the medications they need, and nursing homes become deadbeat hotels where the elderly are deprived because their next of kin stiffed the management and fled.
We owe our grandparents a better world than that.
The system is badly in need of revision. It is understaffed, over-bureaucratted, and way too interested in money. I understand earning a profit, and I am all in favor of doing so, but this system is straight out of the Ebenezar Scrooge Wring Each Dollar Out Of The Sucker school of economics. This is a system where management doesn’t smile because there’s no way to charge people for receiving them.
My wife’s grandmother was a part of the generation that made this nation great. She is part of the generation that beat Hitler, rebuilt the economy after the Depression, and created the lap of luxury that the Boomers are currently sitting in.
We owe them better than this. Charging them 3 star hotel prices for a single room and meals is too much.
This is why I don’t trust corporations. They aren’t interested in real people.
This is why we need Governments - to regulate, and to enforce regulations.
Sure, we can leave the markets to sort themselves out. It worked great in Tombstone, Arizona, back before the Earps.
Is that the kind of America people want? No rules, the strong eat the weak? There are countries like that, you know. They have armed rebellions every few months because without enforced laws, there is only one way for the common people to deal with the grifters and the misers.
I for one do not want our system to degenerate into a Darwinian hell where people steal the medications they need, and nursing homes become deadbeat hotels where the elderly are deprived because their next of kin stiffed the management and fled.
We owe our grandparents a better world than that.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Michael Brown, currently on the payroll of the Department of Homeland Security, today blamed the Katrina fiasco on local government, while remaining mum on his own liabilities, or those of government higher-ups. In other news, the sun rose in the east today.
The government has restated that it will not increase taxes to pay for Katrina. Tom DeLay has also gone on record as saying there is no pork in any of the government's spending bills, so nothing will be cut. In other words, the government is telling the waiter "HE's paying!", pointing across the room, then dodging out the side door.
The Anti-War protests held this week were, for the most part, organized by a few left wing groups. The Support the Troops march a few weeks ago were, for the most part, organized by the Pentagon. Neither were well attended, by most reports.
And the CNN starts a poll as to whether America would accept a female President.
Lunacy.
America is losing all respect for Washington, period. The Republicans, run by a few Ivory Tower hardliners who are not about to have their positions challenged by a few petty facts, and the Democrats, who have no position other than "Bush is wrong", have thoroughly demoralized the country to the point where they don't even care about the war anymore.
Out here in the small towns, we just pick up the pieces of our lives, pick up overtime to pay the extra gas prices, and dream about the day when an unforseen hurricane slams into DC and turns Brown, Farrikan, DeLay, Kennedy, Rove, Hilary, and Bush into refugees.
Whom we can turf out into trailer parks and promise to feed someday.
In the meantime, George, stop wasting airplane fuel on a job that can be done by conference calls. If you'd done your job right in the first place, you wouldn't have to salvage your reputation with a month of photo ops.
The government has restated that it will not increase taxes to pay for Katrina. Tom DeLay has also gone on record as saying there is no pork in any of the government's spending bills, so nothing will be cut. In other words, the government is telling the waiter "HE's paying!", pointing across the room, then dodging out the side door.
The Anti-War protests held this week were, for the most part, organized by a few left wing groups. The Support the Troops march a few weeks ago were, for the most part, organized by the Pentagon. Neither were well attended, by most reports.
And the CNN starts a poll as to whether America would accept a female President.
Lunacy.
America is losing all respect for Washington, period. The Republicans, run by a few Ivory Tower hardliners who are not about to have their positions challenged by a few petty facts, and the Democrats, who have no position other than "Bush is wrong", have thoroughly demoralized the country to the point where they don't even care about the war anymore.
Out here in the small towns, we just pick up the pieces of our lives, pick up overtime to pay the extra gas prices, and dream about the day when an unforseen hurricane slams into DC and turns Brown, Farrikan, DeLay, Kennedy, Rove, Hilary, and Bush into refugees.
Whom we can turf out into trailer parks and promise to feed someday.
In the meantime, George, stop wasting airplane fuel on a job that can be done by conference calls. If you'd done your job right in the first place, you wouldn't have to salvage your reputation with a month of photo ops.
Monday, September 26, 2005
From Sympatico News:
"A leadership that frowns on admitting mistakes is doomed to stagnate, says Gilles Brouillette, director of the Collaborative Leadership Institute's Montreal office.
Justifying blunders rather than owning up to them can end up taking so much time and effort that eventually a manager can't look forward and will become averse to the risk-taking needed for growth, he says."
We are almost halfway through the first decade of the 21st Century. What shall we call it?
The first decade of the 20th Century was the Gilded Era. Nickleodeons, pitching woo, Wright Brothers. Doyle was still writing Sherlock Holmes stories. It was the last gasp of the Edwardian Age, of fine manners, of Duty and Honor.
The first decade of the 21st Century has been marked by arrogance, by insolence, by intolerance. Perhaps the "I's" Age would be appropriate.
It's time we got control of ourselves again. Took responsibility.
Anti-War people - sometimes we do what we must do. Stop shouting.
Leaders - when you make a mistake, admit it. Correct it. Move on.
Judges - you were hired to do a certain job. Do it.
CEOs - you have a duty to your companies, not just to your biggest stockholders and your own pocketbooks. Treat your companies as if they made parts for your artificial hearts.
There is a whole century ahead of us. Spend your days as if you were going to see the end of it.
"A leadership that frowns on admitting mistakes is doomed to stagnate, says Gilles Brouillette, director of the Collaborative Leadership Institute's Montreal office.
Justifying blunders rather than owning up to them can end up taking so much time and effort that eventually a manager can't look forward and will become averse to the risk-taking needed for growth, he says."
We are almost halfway through the first decade of the 21st Century. What shall we call it?
The first decade of the 20th Century was the Gilded Era. Nickleodeons, pitching woo, Wright Brothers. Doyle was still writing Sherlock Holmes stories. It was the last gasp of the Edwardian Age, of fine manners, of Duty and Honor.
The first decade of the 21st Century has been marked by arrogance, by insolence, by intolerance. Perhaps the "I's" Age would be appropriate.
It's time we got control of ourselves again. Took responsibility.
Anti-War people - sometimes we do what we must do. Stop shouting.
Leaders - when you make a mistake, admit it. Correct it. Move on.
Judges - you were hired to do a certain job. Do it.
CEOs - you have a duty to your companies, not just to your biggest stockholders and your own pocketbooks. Treat your companies as if they made parts for your artificial hearts.
There is a whole century ahead of us. Spend your days as if you were going to see the end of it.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Rita is a tragedy.
I am tired of people all over the blogosphere heaving sighs of relief over rita, or gloating that the left won't have anything to rag the government over because Rita was not another Katrina.
That's like smiling after being mugged because the mugger was no Mike Tyson.
Homes are flooded. People have died. Millions of dollars in damages have been done.
It was handled better, yes. After the Katrina media grinder, any official, local, state, or national, who mucked this up would have been guilty of an impeachable offence. Nobody DARED move too slowly on Rita.
So the hurricane relief effort was handled better. Good. Now please stop saying that Rita was easier on everyone than Katrina. The people trying to find something left of their baby photos can't tell the difference.
I am tired of people all over the blogosphere heaving sighs of relief over rita, or gloating that the left won't have anything to rag the government over because Rita was not another Katrina.
That's like smiling after being mugged because the mugger was no Mike Tyson.
Homes are flooded. People have died. Millions of dollars in damages have been done.
It was handled better, yes. After the Katrina media grinder, any official, local, state, or national, who mucked this up would have been guilty of an impeachable offence. Nobody DARED move too slowly on Rita.
So the hurricane relief effort was handled better. Good. Now please stop saying that Rita was easier on everyone than Katrina. The people trying to find something left of their baby photos can't tell the difference.
How to pay for Katrina, Suggestion #66287.
Instead of retaining tax cuts for the rich, offer them a writeoff on any moneys spent on the reclaimation/reconstruction of those areas hit by Hurrican Katrina.
This will
1. Silence a lot of critics.
2. Ensure that the strategy of tax breaks creating new jobs actually works.
3. Save the government from the humiliation of looking under metaphorical seat cushions for the money.
Now, it's not that I don't TRUST the rich not to take the money and run - even though corporate strategy is to do whatever makes the most money, whether it nets you a tax break or not - but I would feel a lot better. And so would the rest of Small Town America.
Instead of retaining tax cuts for the rich, offer them a writeoff on any moneys spent on the reclaimation/reconstruction of those areas hit by Hurrican Katrina.
This will
1. Silence a lot of critics.
2. Ensure that the strategy of tax breaks creating new jobs actually works.
3. Save the government from the humiliation of looking under metaphorical seat cushions for the money.
Now, it's not that I don't TRUST the rich not to take the money and run - even though corporate strategy is to do whatever makes the most money, whether it nets you a tax break or not - but I would feel a lot better. And so would the rest of Small Town America.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
It's time for a good long reform over at the Pentagon - and in Iraq.
The Pentagon is in trouble. At home there's the lost money in Iraq, and the Able Danger scandal. Overseas, there's the fact that it can't draw a bead on the terrorists.
Forget troops - the Army needs intelligence operatives and assets. Competent ones. And right now.
It needs to do three things right now.
1. Maintain 24 hour surveillance of the roads used by US troops in Iraq.
They can try satellite photography, ground sensors linked to infrared video cameras - hell, maybe 2000 ninja would be best - but they need to spot the people setting those mines, and track them back to their homes.
Let's face it - the army isn't going to win this thing playing Whack-a-Mole with the jihadista. They need to find these people. All of them. They need to find their headquarters, their recruiters, their storehouses.
They need military intelligence more than they need tanks right now.
2. Send a battalion of forensic accountants to Bagdad.
They need to restore their credibility both at home and abroad by finding who's been dipping into the till, nailing them to the wall, and GETTING THAT MONEY BACK!
In fact, the Pentagon need to retrieve that money more than they need to arrest the thieves. They need people to know that they aren't bunglers, and that stealing from them is dangerous.
They are sending people to Gitmo for being suspected armed terrorists. Let them send a few known economic terrorists behind the wire, and ask them nicely for their Swiss bank account numbers.
3. They need to link up with the United States Government again.
Negroponte was appointed Intelligence Czar practically over the Pentagon's dead body. Even now, the military is refusing government requests for oversite. This is not a bunch of Democratic anti-war activists asking - this is Congress, and the President. Negroponte was Bush's own selection.
Was Able Danger crushed by Clinton's people? Fine - get Clinton's people out of there, and get good people in. But get that organization working again.
America is in trouble. This is a bad time to have a military that is wasteful, incompetent, and surly.
The Pentagon is in trouble. At home there's the lost money in Iraq, and the Able Danger scandal. Overseas, there's the fact that it can't draw a bead on the terrorists.
Forget troops - the Army needs intelligence operatives and assets. Competent ones. And right now.
It needs to do three things right now.
1. Maintain 24 hour surveillance of the roads used by US troops in Iraq.
They can try satellite photography, ground sensors linked to infrared video cameras - hell, maybe 2000 ninja would be best - but they need to spot the people setting those mines, and track them back to their homes.
Let's face it - the army isn't going to win this thing playing Whack-a-Mole with the jihadista. They need to find these people. All of them. They need to find their headquarters, their recruiters, their storehouses.
They need military intelligence more than they need tanks right now.
2. Send a battalion of forensic accountants to Bagdad.
They need to restore their credibility both at home and abroad by finding who's been dipping into the till, nailing them to the wall, and GETTING THAT MONEY BACK!
In fact, the Pentagon need to retrieve that money more than they need to arrest the thieves. They need people to know that they aren't bunglers, and that stealing from them is dangerous.
They are sending people to Gitmo for being suspected armed terrorists. Let them send a few known economic terrorists behind the wire, and ask them nicely for their Swiss bank account numbers.
3. They need to link up with the United States Government again.
Negroponte was appointed Intelligence Czar practically over the Pentagon's dead body. Even now, the military is refusing government requests for oversite. This is not a bunch of Democratic anti-war activists asking - this is Congress, and the President. Negroponte was Bush's own selection.
Was Able Danger crushed by Clinton's people? Fine - get Clinton's people out of there, and get good people in. But get that organization working again.
America is in trouble. This is a bad time to have a military that is wasteful, incompetent, and surly.
Who pays for next year's storms?
In all the talk about deficits, the cutting of funding for this and that and PBS,
Amid all the debate about who's to blame and what's to be done,
I have not heard one word about how the government plans to pay for the next storm.
We've had two this year. What if we have three next year? Or five?
Do we keep setting up the pins so Hurricane Whoever can knock them over again, or do we stop building cheap pre-fabs and instead build hurricane-proof buildings next time?
Will anyone be able to afford hurricane-proof buildings?
When do we finally sit down and say "Global warming or not, these hurricanes are as big a threat as Nazi bombs were to England in 1941, and a similar national effort is needed as was mobilized in 1941."
In all the talk about deficits, the cutting of funding for this and that and PBS,
Amid all the debate about who's to blame and what's to be done,
I have not heard one word about how the government plans to pay for the next storm.
We've had two this year. What if we have three next year? Or five?
Do we keep setting up the pins so Hurricane Whoever can knock them over again, or do we stop building cheap pre-fabs and instead build hurricane-proof buildings next time?
Will anyone be able to afford hurricane-proof buildings?
When do we finally sit down and say "Global warming or not, these hurricanes are as big a threat as Nazi bombs were to England in 1941, and a similar national effort is needed as was mobilized in 1941."
Friday, September 23, 2005
We the People . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .
Liberty (n)
1.The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2.The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3.The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. 4.Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
5.A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference
- and not just for ourselves, but for our children.
Oppressed by taxes. Oppressed by religion. Oppressed by absentee governors and mercenary troops. Oppressed by government-connected businesses that monopolized trade in the colonies by, among other things, using force to prevent American merchant ships from visiting foreign markets.
Sound familiar?
The republican government, prodded by its religious right allies, have been planning to do more to restrict American liberty than any foreign government in this generation.
It does not believe that Americans have the right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. Any criticism on the government is referred to as anti-American, liberal, pro-terrorist, and any number of other epithets.
It does not believe that Americans deserve the condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. They will lock people up without trial, on suspicion of being a terrorist.
It does not believe in freedom from unjust or undue governmental control, or a right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference. The religious Right has a number of certain actions they wish to control or interfere with, and they want the government to authorize the controlling.
Shame. Six goals, and today they are all as far from achieved as they were in 1773.
In conclusion, let me leave you with this fragment from America's other document, the Declaration of Independence.
". . . That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —"
Liberty (n)
1.The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2.The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3.The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. 4.Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
5.A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference
- and not just for ourselves, but for our children.
Oppressed by taxes. Oppressed by religion. Oppressed by absentee governors and mercenary troops. Oppressed by government-connected businesses that monopolized trade in the colonies by, among other things, using force to prevent American merchant ships from visiting foreign markets.
Sound familiar?
The republican government, prodded by its religious right allies, have been planning to do more to restrict American liberty than any foreign government in this generation.
It does not believe that Americans have the right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. Any criticism on the government is referred to as anti-American, liberal, pro-terrorist, and any number of other epithets.
It does not believe that Americans deserve the condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. They will lock people up without trial, on suspicion of being a terrorist.
It does not believe in freedom from unjust or undue governmental control, or a right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference. The religious Right has a number of certain actions they wish to control or interfere with, and they want the government to authorize the controlling.
Shame. Six goals, and today they are all as far from achieved as they were in 1773.
In conclusion, let me leave you with this fragment from America's other document, the Declaration of Independence.
". . . That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —"
Thursday, September 22, 2005
We the People . . .promote the general Welfare, . .
The Founding Fathers never conceived of a welfare state. Governors of the time used people, they didn't help them. The framers were individualists and proto-libertarians. They believed in the work ethic, no free lunches, and a day's pay for a day's work.
The goal of promoting the general welfare had nothing to do with handing out cheques each month.
The general welfare meant working towards a better future. It meant improving living conditions, working conditions, and health conditions. It meant extending the education of children to farmer's kids as well as those of landowners.
And today? FEMA - gutted. FDA - a political football. Public schools - underfunded, with curriculums dictated by demogogues. Private schools on the rise. Housing overpriced.
In short, the Founding Fathers would be quite at home in today's America - in many ways, it's like the England they fled from.
The Founding Fathers never conceived of a welfare state. Governors of the time used people, they didn't help them. The framers were individualists and proto-libertarians. They believed in the work ethic, no free lunches, and a day's pay for a day's work.
The goal of promoting the general welfare had nothing to do with handing out cheques each month.
The general welfare meant working towards a better future. It meant improving living conditions, working conditions, and health conditions. It meant extending the education of children to farmer's kids as well as those of landowners.
And today? FEMA - gutted. FDA - a political football. Public schools - underfunded, with curriculums dictated by demogogues. Private schools on the rise. Housing overpriced.
In short, the Founding Fathers would be quite at home in today's America - in many ways, it's like the England they fled from.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
We the people . . . provide for the common defence.
Probably the best known part of the preamble, quoted by the NRA, militia groups, and anybody else who thinks that every citizen has a right to own a machine gun.
The Founding Fathers knew oratory, better than any politician today. They were also visionaries. They did not call for arms for all, nor for the establishment of an army.
They could not have predicted aircraft, bioweaponry, or hackers, but they did assume that new dangers might someday menace their new state, and they intended that the federal government should provide for it.
Note also that they intended that the defence be for everyone - a common defence. Everyone pitches in, and everyone benefits. No one is exempt from contributing.
We have managed to pervert this goal as well. The many now benefit from the few, and the few are neglected. The army lacks proper equipment - scandalous, for the richest military in the world - and it is being frittered away on a scandalous mission.
Assuming for a moment that Iraq really IS drawing all the terrorists in the world away from the United States, is it really in our best interest to have our defenders stand on a target all day for months? No wonder enlistment is down. Who wants THIS job?
Moreover, enlistments are primarily limited to the underclasses. The rich men's sons get their degrees and apprenticeships and carry guns for sport, if that.
We have no common defence. We have a career military, made up of the poor in the ranks and the incompetent in command. Now, I'm not saying that we won't survive with this system - England had just such an army in the 19th century - but it's not what the Founding Fathers wanted.
And it's not a good thing. Military recruitment is a good barometer for a nation's commitment to it's system, it's values, and it's government. Recruitment is down. What does that tell you?
Probably the best known part of the preamble, quoted by the NRA, militia groups, and anybody else who thinks that every citizen has a right to own a machine gun.
The Founding Fathers knew oratory, better than any politician today. They were also visionaries. They did not call for arms for all, nor for the establishment of an army.
They could not have predicted aircraft, bioweaponry, or hackers, but they did assume that new dangers might someday menace their new state, and they intended that the federal government should provide for it.
Note also that they intended that the defence be for everyone - a common defence. Everyone pitches in, and everyone benefits. No one is exempt from contributing.
We have managed to pervert this goal as well. The many now benefit from the few, and the few are neglected. The army lacks proper equipment - scandalous, for the richest military in the world - and it is being frittered away on a scandalous mission.
Assuming for a moment that Iraq really IS drawing all the terrorists in the world away from the United States, is it really in our best interest to have our defenders stand on a target all day for months? No wonder enlistment is down. Who wants THIS job?
Moreover, enlistments are primarily limited to the underclasses. The rich men's sons get their degrees and apprenticeships and carry guns for sport, if that.
We have no common defence. We have a career military, made up of the poor in the ranks and the incompetent in command. Now, I'm not saying that we won't survive with this system - England had just such an army in the 19th century - but it's not what the Founding Fathers wanted.
And it's not a good thing. Military recruitment is a good barometer for a nation's commitment to it's system, it's values, and it's government. Recruitment is down. What does that tell you?
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
We the people, in order to . . . insure domestic Tranquility. . .
Insure
v 1. To make sure or secure; as, to insure safety to any one. [1913 Webster]
2: be careful or certain to do something; make certain of something;
Tranquility
n 1: a disposition free from stress or emotion
2: a state of peace and quiet
Despite the current focus of the Religious Right, I doubt the Founding Fathers were referring to the state of our households with their third constitutional goal.
The domestic tranquility they were concerned about was the relationships between the Colonies.
Europe had just spent the better part of the last century in a series of domestic squabbles. The Austrian Succession, the Seven Years War, the Great Northern War - all these, and several others, were little territorial struggles between neighbours. Prussia trying to grab Silesia, Austria grabbing Milan - this was what the rulers of the time did to improve their economy and prestige. Easier to seize a good agricultural area than to create one.
The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid having the Thirteen Colonies become thirteen warring states, expending their strengths in attempts to become number one. The Constitution was meant to create a central government in which all states would be equal.
Today, of course, the electoral votes of three states are crucial, and many states get attention according to the number of votes they can bring to the table. Texas, New York, California, and, yes, Ohio and Florida get a lot more attention (ie money) than North Dakota and Oregon.
This was never the Framer's intent. They wanted a united country, not an eternal squabble for pork barrel dollars and Congressional attention.
Pity. Another goal down the drain.
Insure
v 1. To make sure or secure; as, to insure safety to any one. [1913 Webster]
2: be careful or certain to do something; make certain of something;
Tranquility
n 1: a disposition free from stress or emotion
2: a state of peace and quiet
Despite the current focus of the Religious Right, I doubt the Founding Fathers were referring to the state of our households with their third constitutional goal.
The domestic tranquility they were concerned about was the relationships between the Colonies.
Europe had just spent the better part of the last century in a series of domestic squabbles. The Austrian Succession, the Seven Years War, the Great Northern War - all these, and several others, were little territorial struggles between neighbours. Prussia trying to grab Silesia, Austria grabbing Milan - this was what the rulers of the time did to improve their economy and prestige. Easier to seize a good agricultural area than to create one.
The Founding Fathers wanted to avoid having the Thirteen Colonies become thirteen warring states, expending their strengths in attempts to become number one. The Constitution was meant to create a central government in which all states would be equal.
Today, of course, the electoral votes of three states are crucial, and many states get attention according to the number of votes they can bring to the table. Texas, New York, California, and, yes, Ohio and Florida get a lot more attention (ie money) than North Dakota and Oregon.
This was never the Framer's intent. They wanted a united country, not an eternal squabble for pork barrel dollars and Congressional attention.
Pity. Another goal down the drain.
Monday, September 19, 2005
We The People . . . establish Justice.
Justice
is rendering to every one that which is his due. It has been distinguished from equity in this respect, that while justice means merely the doing what positive law demands, equity means the doing of what is fair and right in every separate case.
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
The Founding Fathers knew all about injustice.
It was still early in the Age of Enlightenment. Voltaire and Kant were both still alive. Slavery still existed, and so did serfdom. The Revolution came about because the rebels refused to help pay for a war Britain entered into in order to have some say in the selection of the next Holy Roman Emperor. The common man of Europe lived a life that would make your average Charles Dickens character look like Paris Hilton.
The worst part were the courts. Judges were the servants of the nobility and the Church, and were employed to make sure things went the way the Church and the nobility wanted them to. Corruption was all but universal.
This is why Establishing Justice was number two on the Constitution's list of goals.
Justice (n)
1 The quality of being just; fairness.
2a The principle of moral rightness; equity.
2b Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3a The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
3b Law. The administration and procedure of law.
3c Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Ed.
The Founding Fathers made the establishment of justice second in their goals for the Constitution. They knew that without justice there is no law, and without law there is no democracy. But they knew also that without equity there is no justice. Where people are not equal, then democracy is a sham.
There is little equity today. The famous, like Michael Jackson; the rich, like Ken Lay, are all held to different standards than you or I. Money and influence can delay or derail laws.
The reason the Founding Fathers separated the Courts from the State was to prevent inequity like this from building up. They knew what happened when the rich and powerful ran the courts, and they set up as many checks and balances as the system would tolerate to keep the courts beyond the influence of the influential.
We need to keep things this way. However good the intention, any change in the functioning of the courts which would give any advantage to the rich over the poor, the corporation over the individual, the church over the state, or the state over the citizen will only destroy democracy.
Justice
is rendering to every one that which is his due. It has been distinguished from equity in this respect, that while justice means merely the doing what positive law demands, equity means the doing of what is fair and right in every separate case.
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
The Founding Fathers knew all about injustice.
It was still early in the Age of Enlightenment. Voltaire and Kant were both still alive. Slavery still existed, and so did serfdom. The Revolution came about because the rebels refused to help pay for a war Britain entered into in order to have some say in the selection of the next Holy Roman Emperor. The common man of Europe lived a life that would make your average Charles Dickens character look like Paris Hilton.
The worst part were the courts. Judges were the servants of the nobility and the Church, and were employed to make sure things went the way the Church and the nobility wanted them to. Corruption was all but universal.
This is why Establishing Justice was number two on the Constitution's list of goals.
Justice (n)
1 The quality of being just; fairness.
2a The principle of moral rightness; equity.
2b Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3a The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
3b Law. The administration and procedure of law.
3c Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Ed.
The Founding Fathers made the establishment of justice second in their goals for the Constitution. They knew that without justice there is no law, and without law there is no democracy. But they knew also that without equity there is no justice. Where people are not equal, then democracy is a sham.
There is little equity today. The famous, like Michael Jackson; the rich, like Ken Lay, are all held to different standards than you or I. Money and influence can delay or derail laws.
The reason the Founding Fathers separated the Courts from the State was to prevent inequity like this from building up. They knew what happened when the rich and powerful ran the courts, and they set up as many checks and balances as the system would tolerate to keep the courts beyond the influence of the influential.
We need to keep things this way. However good the intention, any change in the functioning of the courts which would give any advantage to the rich over the poor, the corporation over the individual, the church over the state, or the state over the citizen will only destroy democracy.
Sunday, September 18, 2005
The preamble of the Constitution is as follows.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In these days of partisan politics, of debate over what government should do, and how big it should be, it might be a good idea to look at this sentence again.
The Constitution, as set out above, tries to accomplish six things. For the next six days I will write about each goal.
The first thing the Constitution sets out to do is to achieve a "more perfect Union". NOT a Union - that was already achieved by the Articles of Confederation of 1777. The Constitution, in 1788, set out to do more.
Think about the times. If you think the current sate of the Union is fractious, with red states and blue, imagine what it was like in 1777, trying to join together the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Puritans of Massachusetts, the free thinkers of Connecticut, the huge company town that was Virginia, and Georgia, which had been founded specifically as a place where the poor and indigent of England could find land.
The Constitution was formed, not as a compromise, but as a promise. It was a framework that would allow all these groups to cooperate for their own good, in order to stave off the powers that would have preyed upon them, and those that did. Many forces conspired against the thirteen colonies in the early years, from Barbary Coast pirates to European businessmen. They needed to stand together, even while detesting each other.
If you cannot see the parallels of today, then you are truly blind. There are as many enemies awaiting their chance to strike America as there were in 1777. And America is just as divided. But it is still possible for Americans to work together. It is possible to say "You're a liberal, and I think you're brain-dead, but I will let you think the way you do, and together we will live in safety". It is possible to say "You're a neo-con, and I think you're incompetent, but I will let you go on living your life as I go on living mine, and together we will beat back our common enemies".
That was the first goal of the Constitution of the United States of America.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In these days of partisan politics, of debate over what government should do, and how big it should be, it might be a good idea to look at this sentence again.
The Constitution, as set out above, tries to accomplish six things. For the next six days I will write about each goal.
The first thing the Constitution sets out to do is to achieve a "more perfect Union". NOT a Union - that was already achieved by the Articles of Confederation of 1777. The Constitution, in 1788, set out to do more.
Think about the times. If you think the current sate of the Union is fractious, with red states and blue, imagine what it was like in 1777, trying to join together the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Puritans of Massachusetts, the free thinkers of Connecticut, the huge company town that was Virginia, and Georgia, which had been founded specifically as a place where the poor and indigent of England could find land.
The Constitution was formed, not as a compromise, but as a promise. It was a framework that would allow all these groups to cooperate for their own good, in order to stave off the powers that would have preyed upon them, and those that did. Many forces conspired against the thirteen colonies in the early years, from Barbary Coast pirates to European businessmen. They needed to stand together, even while detesting each other.
If you cannot see the parallels of today, then you are truly blind. There are as many enemies awaiting their chance to strike America as there were in 1777. And America is just as divided. But it is still possible for Americans to work together. It is possible to say "You're a liberal, and I think you're brain-dead, but I will let you think the way you do, and together we will live in safety". It is possible to say "You're a neo-con, and I think you're incompetent, but I will let you go on living your life as I go on living mine, and together we will beat back our common enemies".
That was the first goal of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Now it's God's fault that the rescue efforts failed.
My dear Mr. Bush;
God places these trials in our path so that we can overcome them - and, through our choice of actions, earn grace. You have not been earning very much grace in this matter, Mr. Bush. Not by continuing your vacation as the crisis developed, not by your words and deeds during the crisis, and not by your actions since.
Time to stop listening to your Christian-themed idealogues and corporate backers and do the right thing, Mr. Bush. For New Orleans, and for the United States.
My dear Mr. Bush;
God places these trials in our path so that we can overcome them - and, through our choice of actions, earn grace. You have not been earning very much grace in this matter, Mr. Bush. Not by continuing your vacation as the crisis developed, not by your words and deeds during the crisis, and not by your actions since.
Time to stop listening to your Christian-themed idealogues and corporate backers and do the right thing, Mr. Bush. For New Orleans, and for the United States.
Friday, September 16, 2005
A tale of two people today.
In Canada, September 1st was the 25th anniversary of the end of the Terry Fox run. Terry Fox was a Canadian who had lost his leg to cancer, but decided to run from one end of the country to the other to raise awareness for cancer research. He had to stop when cancer spread to his lungs, and he died soon after.
Strange to compare a Canadian hero with an American one. Americans have a lot more heroes, and tell their stories better. But most American heroes are either entertainers, or shootists. Maybe Canadians just have higher standards.
Meanwhile, in August, Mitchell Johnson was released from prison in Memphis, Tenn. - permanently, not on bail. Johnson was the boy who, with a classmate, shot up their school in Jonesboro, Ark., killing four girls and a teacher and wounding 10. Since he was a juvenile when arrested, he gets out without a criminal record, and presumably will not be monitored. Hope he's changed. For the better.
In Canada, September 1st was the 25th anniversary of the end of the Terry Fox run. Terry Fox was a Canadian who had lost his leg to cancer, but decided to run from one end of the country to the other to raise awareness for cancer research. He had to stop when cancer spread to his lungs, and he died soon after.
Strange to compare a Canadian hero with an American one. Americans have a lot more heroes, and tell their stories better. But most American heroes are either entertainers, or shootists. Maybe Canadians just have higher standards.
Meanwhile, in August, Mitchell Johnson was released from prison in Memphis, Tenn. - permanently, not on bail. Johnson was the boy who, with a classmate, shot up their school in Jonesboro, Ark., killing four girls and a teacher and wounding 10. Since he was a juvenile when arrested, he gets out without a criminal record, and presumably will not be monitored. Hope he's changed. For the better.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Not bad.
I just watched the live address of George W. Bush on TV. As speeches go, not bad.
I liked that the government has fixed the many things it has. I liked the three measures the government is about to take to alleviate poverty in the Katrina-hit areas, and stimulate jobs.
I wish he would have extended those measures to cover all the poor across the entire US, but New Orleans is a start.
I am also happy to hear that there is going to be a revision of the disaster planning nationwide, to prevent further Katrinas from similar devastations.
However, these are just promises so far, and we know what politicians are like with promises. It is our job now to hold him to these. No matter what the Democrats would like, the Bush government will not be going for a few years. Any plans that are carried out will be their plans. It is our job to make sure their plans are the right plans for America.
I just watched the live address of George W. Bush on TV. As speeches go, not bad.
I liked that the government has fixed the many things it has. I liked the three measures the government is about to take to alleviate poverty in the Katrina-hit areas, and stimulate jobs.
I wish he would have extended those measures to cover all the poor across the entire US, but New Orleans is a start.
I am also happy to hear that there is going to be a revision of the disaster planning nationwide, to prevent further Katrinas from similar devastations.
However, these are just promises so far, and we know what politicians are like with promises. It is our job now to hold him to these. No matter what the Democrats would like, the Bush government will not be going for a few years. Any plans that are carried out will be their plans. It is our job to make sure their plans are the right plans for America.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Does anybody remember what it was like to have hope?
Remember when we thought things were going to get better? When we thought our lives were going to improve?
Remember when we were going to have MORE leisure time? BETTER health care? A cure for cancer and a life span of 150?
Remember when we were going to explore the solar system, mine the asteroids, beam solar power down for our needs? Remember when we were going to have homes as cheap as cars, and the power company would have to bill us yearly because our monthly charges would only come to a few cents?
Remember when cars were going to run for pennies per mile, and food would be plentiful?
What happened?
If the governments of the last 50 years have done anything for us, it has been to strip us of hope. Republicans, Democrats - they have both bowed down to the Corporation, that legal fiction with the mind of a sociopath and the heart of Scrooge, and we have died a little inside.
If you ever need a reason for drug use in this country, consider that the primary use of drugs is to numb pain. The unacknowledged pain of hopelessness.
If Democrats want to win the next election, let them offer us hope. If the Republicans want to keep power, let them fulfill a few dreams.
If they want to kill the United States, they are doing just fine right now.
Remember when we thought things were going to get better? When we thought our lives were going to improve?
Remember when we were going to have MORE leisure time? BETTER health care? A cure for cancer and a life span of 150?
Remember when we were going to explore the solar system, mine the asteroids, beam solar power down for our needs? Remember when we were going to have homes as cheap as cars, and the power company would have to bill us yearly because our monthly charges would only come to a few cents?
Remember when cars were going to run for pennies per mile, and food would be plentiful?
What happened?
If the governments of the last 50 years have done anything for us, it has been to strip us of hope. Republicans, Democrats - they have both bowed down to the Corporation, that legal fiction with the mind of a sociopath and the heart of Scrooge, and we have died a little inside.
If you ever need a reason for drug use in this country, consider that the primary use of drugs is to numb pain. The unacknowledged pain of hopelessness.
If Democrats want to win the next election, let them offer us hope. If the Republicans want to keep power, let them fulfill a few dreams.
If they want to kill the United States, they are doing just fine right now.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Found this on the Web. Interesting. Sorry about the spacing. I have included sources and link at the bottom.
Fascism Anyone? Laurence W. Britt SecularHumanism.org 7-25-2004
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2. Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the "Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles" on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism's principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm. We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities. Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances. For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible. Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice - relentless propaganda and disinformation - were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or "traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Note 1. Defined as a "political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism" - Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. References Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980. Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963. Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001. Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999. de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal - Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976. Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995. Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970. Gallo, Max. Mussolini's Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973. Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999. Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996. Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971. Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001. Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999. Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001. Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977. Laurence Britt's novel, June, 2004, depicts a future America dominated by right-wing extremists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Via The Konformist http://www.konformist.com Kirby The Konspiracy Boy says, "Don't read this magazine!!! It's all a diabolical brainwashing plot!!!" Mailing list - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist
Fascism Anyone? Laurence W. Britt SecularHumanism.org 7-25-2004
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2. Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the "Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles" on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism's principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm. We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities. Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances. For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible. Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice - relentless propaganda and disinformation - were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.
7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or "traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Note 1. Defined as a "political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism" - Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. References Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980. Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963. Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001. Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999. de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal - Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976. Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995. Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970. Gallo, Max. Mussolini's Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973. Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999. Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996. Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971. Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001. Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999. Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001. Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977. Laurence Britt's novel, June, 2004, depicts a future America dominated by right-wing extremists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Via The Konformist http://www.konformist.com Kirby The Konspiracy Boy says, "Don't read this magazine!!! It's all a diabolical brainwashing plot!!!" Mailing list - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist
So now Katrina is the media's fault.
Mr. Bush has stated that the media told him that New Orleans had "dodged the bullet", which slowed down government response - they didn't know it was serious until later.
Uh huh. So, with all the intelligence resources of the government, the US Weather Service, EarthSats, spy sats, and local agencies, the United States Government still gets its information from the TeeVee, just like us Small Town Hicks.
No wonder we're in such a mess.
Mr. Bush has stated that the media told him that New Orleans had "dodged the bullet", which slowed down government response - they didn't know it was serious until later.
Uh huh. So, with all the intelligence resources of the government, the US Weather Service, EarthSats, spy sats, and local agencies, the United States Government still gets its information from the TeeVee, just like us Small Town Hicks.
No wonder we're in such a mess.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Gonna nuke them terrorists.
That's the story from the Washington Post yesterday. The Pentagon wants approval for a new strategy in which nuclear weapons could be used preemptively against terrorists, or rogue states, that are planning a WMD attack against the United States.
1) Here's the lazy man's government at work. Not even going to bother invading or declaring war on 'em - just going to blast them. Apparently SOMEBODY's finally acknowledging that having all the troops in one basket isn't a good idea.
2) Lazy Man part two - Can't even be bothered looking for terrorists any more. Terrorists are thirty guys and their bomb lab. You could take them out with a SEAL team - if your intelligence agency could tell you where they are. A shame nobody is talking to CIA agents anymore, but WHO CARES! Narrow it down to the nearest city, and boom!
3) Naturally, nobody will feel threatened by this. After all, America has never simply declared a country to be a "rogue state with WMDs" out of faulty intelligence, greed, or wishful thinking. No, it's only a few nations that would feel threatened.
Thus, it only stands to reason that . . .
4) Naturally, none of the other nuclear/major powers are going to consider this strategy to be A MAJOR THREAT BY A ROGUE STATE. Everyone loves America, and nobody would use a nuclear first strike to bomb the hell out of us. Right?
This is scary.
That's the story from the Washington Post yesterday. The Pentagon wants approval for a new strategy in which nuclear weapons could be used preemptively against terrorists, or rogue states, that are planning a WMD attack against the United States.
1) Here's the lazy man's government at work. Not even going to bother invading or declaring war on 'em - just going to blast them. Apparently SOMEBODY's finally acknowledging that having all the troops in one basket isn't a good idea.
2) Lazy Man part two - Can't even be bothered looking for terrorists any more. Terrorists are thirty guys and their bomb lab. You could take them out with a SEAL team - if your intelligence agency could tell you where they are. A shame nobody is talking to CIA agents anymore, but WHO CARES! Narrow it down to the nearest city, and boom!
3) Naturally, nobody will feel threatened by this. After all, America has never simply declared a country to be a "rogue state with WMDs" out of faulty intelligence, greed, or wishful thinking. No, it's only a few nations that would feel threatened.
Thus, it only stands to reason that . . .
4) Naturally, none of the other nuclear/major powers are going to consider this strategy to be A MAJOR THREAT BY A ROGUE STATE. Everyone loves America, and nobody would use a nuclear first strike to bomb the hell out of us. Right?
This is scary.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
And so another September 11 passes.
After four years, we find ourselves woefully unprepared, either for hurricanes or for terrorists. The right blames local government, the radical left, gays, abortionists, and probably Cindy Sheenan. It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter who is responsibile.
What matters now is what Bush and the government are doing about it. They now know the current system doesn't work. Are they upgrading FEMA? Are they about to announce new plans, policies, regulations, and rules?
Or are they sitting around feeding their spin doctors the doctrine of the day?
You can only use the "Wasn't our fault" excuse once. Next time, we'll all know it was because the government didn't even try to do its job.
After four years, we find ourselves woefully unprepared, either for hurricanes or for terrorists. The right blames local government, the radical left, gays, abortionists, and probably Cindy Sheenan. It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter who is responsibile.
What matters now is what Bush and the government are doing about it. They now know the current system doesn't work. Are they upgrading FEMA? Are they about to announce new plans, policies, regulations, and rules?
Or are they sitting around feeding their spin doctors the doctrine of the day?
You can only use the "Wasn't our fault" excuse once. Next time, we'll all know it was because the government didn't even try to do its job.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
And so the United States goes stumbling along.
I wonder what the rest of the world thinks about America. Does the world still see the US as leader of the free world, or as a drunken bum?
Disaster hits, and it takes days for the relief effort to get going, while the president lazily wanders back from vacation.
Scandals, both in business and in government, are met with scorn, lies, and indifference.
Allies are alienated, while short term alliances are pursued for short term goals. The UN is used as a scapegoat.
The government sees nothing beyond winning the next election, and cares for nothing outside its borders. It rewards only loyalty, it listens only to yes men.
The highest court in the land is seen not as a bastion of law, but as an implementer of policy.
Education becomes a battleground of ideology, not of information.
This is leadership?
I wonder what the rest of the world thinks about America. Does the world still see the US as leader of the free world, or as a drunken bum?
Disaster hits, and it takes days for the relief effort to get going, while the president lazily wanders back from vacation.
Scandals, both in business and in government, are met with scorn, lies, and indifference.
Allies are alienated, while short term alliances are pursued for short term goals. The UN is used as a scapegoat.
The government sees nothing beyond winning the next election, and cares for nothing outside its borders. It rewards only loyalty, it listens only to yes men.
The highest court in the land is seen not as a bastion of law, but as an implementer of policy.
Education becomes a battleground of ideology, not of information.
This is leadership?
Friday, September 09, 2005
Scientists say we're getting smarter.
The two human genes that determine brain size and complexity, ASPM and microcephalin, are apparently still evolving. This could mean that our decendants will be much smarter than today's human.
Hopefully, we can hold on that long. In other news:
- The war in Iraq is not the fourth most expensive war in US history. It has cost every taxpayer in the US $850.
- Brown has been recalled to Washington. This is not a reflection of his lack of abilities, acording to the director of Homeland Security and several bloggers. This is because FEMA cannot focus on just one incident, but must be ready to handle other disasters as they come. In other words, he's going to be in charge of the next disaster, too.
- The order to forcibly evacuate New Orleans has been lifted. Yesterday, it was manditory to get everyone out. They wouldn't be able to clean the place up unless they got everyone out. Hundreds of poor citizens were loaded onto trucks with few or none of their belongings, shipped to a different state in some cases. In unrelated news, some of the rich homeowners of New Orleans have started moving back in, in order to protect their fine houses from looting. Some of them have brought security teams to help guard their homes. Many are no doubt big political contributors.
Life goes on.
The two human genes that determine brain size and complexity, ASPM and microcephalin, are apparently still evolving. This could mean that our decendants will be much smarter than today's human.
Hopefully, we can hold on that long. In other news:
- The war in Iraq is not the fourth most expensive war in US history. It has cost every taxpayer in the US $850.
- Brown has been recalled to Washington. This is not a reflection of his lack of abilities, acording to the director of Homeland Security and several bloggers. This is because FEMA cannot focus on just one incident, but must be ready to handle other disasters as they come. In other words, he's going to be in charge of the next disaster, too.
- The order to forcibly evacuate New Orleans has been lifted. Yesterday, it was manditory to get everyone out. They wouldn't be able to clean the place up unless they got everyone out. Hundreds of poor citizens were loaded onto trucks with few or none of their belongings, shipped to a different state in some cases. In unrelated news, some of the rich homeowners of New Orleans have started moving back in, in order to protect their fine houses from looting. Some of them have brought security teams to help guard their homes. Many are no doubt big political contributors.
Life goes on.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
To any and all apologists out there - it IS Bush's fault.
He and his cronies have been in power for over 5 years now.
Complete power. Majorities in both House and Senate.
He has had 5 years to work. 5 years to improve things.
He was the one who decided that local and state governments must handle disasters. If things turn out badly because local and state functionaries could not manage, it is due to his decision. He did not have to push everything onto other shoulders if he didn't want to.
HE had a powerful, capable FEMA when he started his first term. He gutted it. If it hasn't worked out, it is because he made a bad decision.
(Partisan politics, you say? Democrats deliberately fouling things up to make Bush look bad? Fine. He and his friends should have known there'd be partisan politics, and planned accordingly. They didn't. They're still stupid.)
Mr. Bush says it isn't the time for blame or politics. Of course he does. The last thing a crook wants is for the investigation to start, especially if he knows it's an open and shut case.
Sorry, Mr. Bush. I have given you the benefit of the doubt in the past, but this cannot be explained away, blamed on the liberals, or pushed aside as "unimportant".
It IS time. Time for you to face your public.
He and his cronies have been in power for over 5 years now.
Complete power. Majorities in both House and Senate.
He has had 5 years to work. 5 years to improve things.
He was the one who decided that local and state governments must handle disasters. If things turn out badly because local and state functionaries could not manage, it is due to his decision. He did not have to push everything onto other shoulders if he didn't want to.
HE had a powerful, capable FEMA when he started his first term. He gutted it. If it hasn't worked out, it is because he made a bad decision.
(Partisan politics, you say? Democrats deliberately fouling things up to make Bush look bad? Fine. He and his friends should have known there'd be partisan politics, and planned accordingly. They didn't. They're still stupid.)
Mr. Bush says it isn't the time for blame or politics. Of course he does. The last thing a crook wants is for the investigation to start, especially if he knows it's an open and shut case.
Sorry, Mr. Bush. I have given you the benefit of the doubt in the past, but this cannot be explained away, blamed on the liberals, or pushed aside as "unimportant".
It IS time. Time for you to face your public.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Bush is going to regret gutting FEMA.
The White House has said that it is not the time or place to lay the blame, or to review the performance of the appointees like Brown.
They'd better make it the time. More hurricanes are headed Florida-way. If another city gets plastered without proper FEMA assistance, Bush is going to need the National Guard in Washington to keep out the rioters.
And I don't think Jeb is going to let him get away with the "locals at fault" arguments the right wingers and "anonymous government sources" have been throwing around. (did't they get rid of those after Miller?)
Jeb may have presidential ambitions of his own, and "Flubbed the hurricane relief effort" is not going to look good on his resume. If George tries to blame the next one on Jeb, there's going to be a party split. Not to mention a family fight.
The White House has said that it is not the time or place to lay the blame, or to review the performance of the appointees like Brown.
They'd better make it the time. More hurricanes are headed Florida-way. If another city gets plastered without proper FEMA assistance, Bush is going to need the National Guard in Washington to keep out the rioters.
And I don't think Jeb is going to let him get away with the "locals at fault" arguments the right wingers and "anonymous government sources" have been throwing around. (did't they get rid of those after Miller?)
Jeb may have presidential ambitions of his own, and "Flubbed the hurricane relief effort" is not going to look good on his resume. If George tries to blame the next one on Jeb, there's going to be a party split. Not to mention a family fight.
Monday, September 05, 2005
What's our current terror level?
Has anyone else considered the possibility that NOW would be a good time for terrorists to strike, what with all our resources en route to Louisiana?
No, I didn't think so. For such a pro-active government, the Washington crowd seems to be in a very reactive mood these days. From "We've got to get Saddam before he gets us!", we've gone to "Oh, here comes Katrina. Wow, here's Katrina! Ouch! Look what Katrina did. Guess we'd better do something."
The whole effort still seems to be in slow motion. You don't see fleets of helecopters heading into the city, you see one or two heading out or coming back. This is the most powerful nation in the world. Can't it manage to produce a fleet of copters? Of airboats?
Has anyone else considered the possibility that NOW would be a good time for terrorists to strike, what with all our resources en route to Louisiana?
No, I didn't think so. For such a pro-active government, the Washington crowd seems to be in a very reactive mood these days. From "We've got to get Saddam before he gets us!", we've gone to "Oh, here comes Katrina. Wow, here's Katrina! Ouch! Look what Katrina did. Guess we'd better do something."
The whole effort still seems to be in slow motion. You don't see fleets of helecopters heading into the city, you see one or two heading out or coming back. This is the most powerful nation in the world. Can't it manage to produce a fleet of copters? Of airboats?
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Reactions to Katrina have been mixed.
Some have worked hard to provide help to those trapped in New Orleans. At the other extreme are those who have worked equally hard to scam people over the Internet, or to rob, rape, and murder their fellow New Orleaners.
In the middle are perhaps the worst of all - the indifferent. The people who watch the rescues for ten minutes on CNN, then switch to the ball game or a CSI-Miami rerun. The people summed up by an acquaintance who, seeing the images of a damaged Dome and hundreds fouling the forty-yard line, had nothing to say but "I guess the Saints will be playing somewhere else this year, huh." Indeed.
I find myself among this group, unfortunately. I have spent the last couple of days examining my feelings, as to why I can't muster much care for my fellow man. I haven't found much.
1) Upbringing. My parents kept away from neighbor's, only contributed to church functions, and never gave to a cause they didn't intend to get back. My mother stopped contributing to a charity we'd been giving to for 20 years, because they were unable to contribute anything to my Dad's care when he got cancer.
2) Financial state. I have $800 mortgage payments every month, $315 car payments, and sundry other bills. Any mention of charities to my wife are met with a huge snort. She wants a screen door and a central vacuum. She doesn't know anyone in New Orleans. And she's a Packers fan.
3) Expectations from Government. I pay taxes. Lots of them. Despite scandals, pork, and waste, I still have my hard earned cash dragged out of me for taxes. I want something back, and disaster relief is one of those things. The Federal government is supposed to connect and co-ordinate the efforts of The States. A huge multi-State effort like this is exactly what they should be doing. So why should I pay twice?
And, loath though I am to admit it,
4) SEP. Someone else's problem. None of my friends and family live down there, own property down there, or know anyone down there. Most of us probably feel the same way, whether we blog about it or not. Admit it - when you first heard that the city flooded, did you mourn anything other than the loss of Bourbon Street and this year's Mardi Gras? Did you even KNOW about the thousands of urban poor who lived there, who were trapped there? Probably not.
Tell me. If Katrina 2 we're to hit your home city, are there any poor neighborhoods that would end up being airlifted out, like the poor of New Orleans?
And do you suppose they could use our help NOW?
And are you GOING to help them, even though Bush isn't likely to give them anything unless a class five storm focuses the media's attention on them and forces his hand?
Some have worked hard to provide help to those trapped in New Orleans. At the other extreme are those who have worked equally hard to scam people over the Internet, or to rob, rape, and murder their fellow New Orleaners.
In the middle are perhaps the worst of all - the indifferent. The people who watch the rescues for ten minutes on CNN, then switch to the ball game or a CSI-Miami rerun. The people summed up by an acquaintance who, seeing the images of a damaged Dome and hundreds fouling the forty-yard line, had nothing to say but "I guess the Saints will be playing somewhere else this year, huh." Indeed.
I find myself among this group, unfortunately. I have spent the last couple of days examining my feelings, as to why I can't muster much care for my fellow man. I haven't found much.
1) Upbringing. My parents kept away from neighbor's, only contributed to church functions, and never gave to a cause they didn't intend to get back. My mother stopped contributing to a charity we'd been giving to for 20 years, because they were unable to contribute anything to my Dad's care when he got cancer.
2) Financial state. I have $800 mortgage payments every month, $315 car payments, and sundry other bills. Any mention of charities to my wife are met with a huge snort. She wants a screen door and a central vacuum. She doesn't know anyone in New Orleans. And she's a Packers fan.
3) Expectations from Government. I pay taxes. Lots of them. Despite scandals, pork, and waste, I still have my hard earned cash dragged out of me for taxes. I want something back, and disaster relief is one of those things. The Federal government is supposed to connect and co-ordinate the efforts of The States. A huge multi-State effort like this is exactly what they should be doing. So why should I pay twice?
And, loath though I am to admit it,
4) SEP. Someone else's problem. None of my friends and family live down there, own property down there, or know anyone down there. Most of us probably feel the same way, whether we blog about it or not. Admit it - when you first heard that the city flooded, did you mourn anything other than the loss of Bourbon Street and this year's Mardi Gras? Did you even KNOW about the thousands of urban poor who lived there, who were trapped there? Probably not.
Tell me. If Katrina 2 we're to hit your home city, are there any poor neighborhoods that would end up being airlifted out, like the poor of New Orleans?
And do you suppose they could use our help NOW?
And are you GOING to help them, even though Bush isn't likely to give them anything unless a class five storm focuses the media's attention on them and forces his hand?
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Censorship is based on the idea that Evil is stronger than Good.
Censorship says "Go ahead - educate your children in morals and ethics, by word and deed. Set a good example. Read to them nightly from the Bible. It won't make a fig of difference because the moment they see one nasty picture, hear one racy lyric, or read one piece of perverse prose, they'll be corrupted. One exposure, and they'll spend the rest of their lives toking and looking for cheap sex."
Of course, the forces of censorship never say this to your face. Not directly. But if you listen to their arguments with the above in mind, the message comes through.
The second message that comes through is that they're better than you. THEY can remain pure after seeing those EEEVIL pictures, but YOU and YOUR KIDS can't. You're weak.
Or sane.
Censorship says "Go ahead - educate your children in morals and ethics, by word and deed. Set a good example. Read to them nightly from the Bible. It won't make a fig of difference because the moment they see one nasty picture, hear one racy lyric, or read one piece of perverse prose, they'll be corrupted. One exposure, and they'll spend the rest of their lives toking and looking for cheap sex."
Of course, the forces of censorship never say this to your face. Not directly. But if you listen to their arguments with the above in mind, the message comes through.
The second message that comes through is that they're better than you. THEY can remain pure after seeing those EEEVIL pictures, but YOU and YOUR KIDS can't. You're weak.
Or sane.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Imagine that Katrina never happened - that instead, terrorists blew the levees.
What would be different?
Would Canada still be unable to send aid because Homeland Security bureaucrats are tying it up? Probably.
Would Bush have still dragged out his vacation as long as politically feasible? Probably.
Would the Louisiana National Guard still be struggling to provide aid with 40% of its strength in Iraq? Probably.
Would we be putting up with this?
Then why are we putting up with this now?
No, people. The Republicans won the last election by insisting that they could handle emergencies. They didn't quibble, didn't add "so long as they are caused by arab extremists". They said they could handle this kind of thing.
They can't handle this kind of thing.
All the red hot rhetoric, spin doctoring, blame shifting, acusations of disloyalty, and suspensions of disbelief will not change the fact that an American city has been destroyed, and the government is unprepared and incapable of responding properly.
What would be different?
Would Canada still be unable to send aid because Homeland Security bureaucrats are tying it up? Probably.
Would Bush have still dragged out his vacation as long as politically feasible? Probably.
Would the Louisiana National Guard still be struggling to provide aid with 40% of its strength in Iraq? Probably.
Would we be putting up with this?
Then why are we putting up with this now?
No, people. The Republicans won the last election by insisting that they could handle emergencies. They didn't quibble, didn't add "so long as they are caused by arab extremists". They said they could handle this kind of thing.
They can't handle this kind of thing.
All the red hot rhetoric, spin doctoring, blame shifting, acusations of disloyalty, and suspensions of disbelief will not change the fact that an American city has been destroyed, and the government is unprepared and incapable of responding properly.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
The real problem with America is that the baby boomers are running it now.
The boomers, the "me" generation, now in their 60's, are now the people in charge. They are the CEOs, the senior partners, the elected officials. And it shows.
It shows in business. The motto "the buck stops here" has been replaced with "whoever dies with the most toys, wins." Environment, bah. Quality, bah. Businesses exist to extract money from others, and responsibility is for underlings.
It shows in show business. The boomers want all their old TV shows back, and to hell with new ideas. The only next generation they're interested in is Star Trek, and the only improvements they're interested in is to change all those crewwomen's uniforms from mini-skirts to catsuits.
Why plan for the future? The Me generation isn't interested - this is the generation that didn't have kids because kids would have cut into their disposable income. The world only has to last one week after their death - just long enough for the lavish funeral and the magazine spread.
I won't live to see it, but I have great hopes for the future - if only because the boomers will not be running it any more.
The boomers, the "me" generation, now in their 60's, are now the people in charge. They are the CEOs, the senior partners, the elected officials. And it shows.
It shows in business. The motto "the buck stops here" has been replaced with "whoever dies with the most toys, wins." Environment, bah. Quality, bah. Businesses exist to extract money from others, and responsibility is for underlings.
It shows in show business. The boomers want all their old TV shows back, and to hell with new ideas. The only next generation they're interested in is Star Trek, and the only improvements they're interested in is to change all those crewwomen's uniforms from mini-skirts to catsuits.
Why plan for the future? The Me generation isn't interested - this is the generation that didn't have kids because kids would have cut into their disposable income. The world only has to last one week after their death - just long enough for the lavish funeral and the magazine spread.
I won't live to see it, but I have great hopes for the future - if only because the boomers will not be running it any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)