What If...

... the US was a mature and involved society? Then people like me wouldn't have to post pictures like this:



to try to get the point across.

More From The "Just Don't Get It" Department

Bailed-out firms rename their cash bonuses as ‘retention awards.’


Dear Huge Companies,

It's not the name, you over-entitled, privileged, completely-out-of-touch-with-the-real-world, frozen hot chocolate (wtf is that, anyway?) drinking, money-grubbing assholes. It's the fact that you're giving each other multi-millions of dollars while everyone else suffers.

(I) Sincerely (hope you choke on your frozen hot chocolate),
Bob

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!

I have had the hiccups for 8 of the last 10 waking hours. I don't think I was hiccuping in my sleep, but, as I was asleep, I cannot be sure.

Hiccups. are. annoying. To put it mildly.

/sigh -- hic/

UPDATE: 11:11pm... after a brief, approx. half-hour reprieve, the hiccups returned and are still going.

Snow?

As regular readers will know, I am a huge fan of snow. You also know that I'm far from Teh Mountainz (far meaning I can't even see them on the horizon).

Since I left the Secret Lair (aka '73 Winnebago) last Wednesday morning, it has snowed twice there, with a chance of more this morning. And this morning I'm scanning my Google News page, and come across this headline:

Officials prepare heavy snow in western NC

Now, I hope this is just a case of a missing preposition, because otherwise it would mean that "Officials" could have prepared somea that snow before I left, so's I could have enjoyed it.

Highway Robbery (Literally)

A week ago today, I got gas at the country store down the road for $3.45/gallon.

Enter Hurricane Ike (which didn't get within 500 miles of Western North Carolina)...

Today I had to drive to five different places to even find gas - apparently they've all been without since Friday - and it was $4.69/gallon.

Let's hear it for unfettered Capitalism!!!

Quote of the Day

It’s been a sobering, humbling seven years riding this Learning Curve, hurtling through an ever narrowing tunnel of darkness on the back of this unrecognizable thing we call America the Beautiful, America the Terrible, One Nation Under God, Inexcusable, Indefensible, Unaccountable, With Liberty and Justice for the Highest Bidder. And in the end, if we paid any attention at all, we learned that Fundamentalism, be it Islamic, or Christian, or Capitalist, is an evil thing, a poison, an indiscriminate reaper of souls, those of its practitioners who perceive its darkness as The Light, and those who, in opposing it, become the Beast we set out to destroy.

- my Siamese Cousin, TheCunningRunt. Please go read the whole thing.

Unclear On The Concept?

A couple weeks ago I was doing some research for an article I was working on for another venue, and I came across a an article linked from E: The Environmental Magazine. I clicked on the link, and was told that to read it I would have to sign up for a free trial issue. Sure, no prob. It stated right there that I could opt out of the 1 year subscription, blah, blah, blah.

Problem #1: After filling out the form for the free issue, I was given access to the first issue of the magazine, not the article I was wanting to read for my research.

Problem #2: The bill for the one year subscription arrived in the mail a couple days ago - before the free issue ever arrived.

Problem #3: The envelope? From E: The Environmental Magazine? Came stuffed with about 30 pieces of paper, with all kinds of BS offers from I don't know what-all. WHAT!?!?

All hail capitalism!

A Link-Laden Diatribe

A quick note to those not associated with the Occupying Regime here in the United States of America:

Please remember, as the bombs and missiles strike targets in Iran, that the vast majority of people in the US - including members of the military[dead link edited - see update below] - view this attack as immoral (not to mention illegal).



I'm afraid the above mentioned scenario is no longer a product of tin-foil hat delusion, but is a nearly unavoidable occurrence. As a nation, however, we are too distracted by the beginning of college and professional football, pennant races in baseball, the latest installment of Big Brother, and whatever other distractions the MSM can come up with, to be bothered to give a shit.

As long as corporate CEO's continue to get nine-figure salaries and cheap, lead filled toys are available at Wal-Mart, and pop singers are walking around with their privates exposed, we are content.

Your suffering - at our hands - and hatred of us do not matter.

We are the "shining city on the hill" - chosen by God, no less - and we can do whatever the fuck we want.

While the turrists may be able to cross the Atlantic and Pacific with impunity, we know that the great oceans protect us from attack by any nation-state (Canada and Mexico are mere puppets, having been lured by the promise of corporate largesse - so we have no need to fear them).




In closing, I'd just like to say how I look forward to forming an escape committee with my fellow inmates at the Blackwater-run Interment Camps that are being set up around the country to deal with us librul malcontents. You can't miss me; I'm over six feet tall, weigh close to 300#, and have a big gray beard.

If I'm not just shot outright, that is.

And my own pre-emptive strike on non-literate writers: it's "Martial Law", not "Marshall Law", you dumb shits.

UPDATE: As Brian from Incertus points out in comments, the DailyKos diary referencing the military has been deleted. A "rebuttal" of said post can be found here.

Lamp Induced Wanderings

There was a time, not so long ago, when all a person had for light at night was a few candles, a lamp if he were lucky, and the light from the fire on the hearth. Back in those days, people rose early and retired to bed not long after the sun set in the west - not because they had worked hard all day on the farm, which they most assuredly did - but rather because there is not much one can do in the semi-darkness of lamplight (and most of those things take place in bed anyway - wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?).

These words which you are reading have been transcribed from paper and were written - late at night - by lamplight. For over three hours now I have been sitting in the semi-darkness our ancestors experienced every night of their lives. A storm blew through these hills - a primeval force of wind, rain and lightning - and the electricity that we all take for granted vanished in a flash. [Transcribing note: I understand that thousands of folk in the Chicago area are currently without power due to a similar storm]

As I sit in the lamplight, I stare at the darkened screen of my monitor and - as often happens when the unexpected occurs - I am forced to see things in a different... well, light.

The light, in fact, of a hurricane lamp, which I keep at hand for just such occasions. When one lives out in the boonies, one has a recurring experience of being without power. Especially during a time of drought, when trees are weakened and the wind is more likely to topple one onto a power line.


Darrell King (Rev. Isaiah Sims), Wes Martin (Dan'l Boone) and Mark Woodard (Dr. Geoffrey Stuart) in Horn in the West


Some years ago I lived in Boone, NC and for several summers was a cast member of the outdoor drama Horn in the West. Horn tells the fictionalized story of the first European settlers (meaning, in actuality, invaders) in the mountains along what is now the North Carolina - Tennessee border, and how they joined the cause of Liberty against the tyranny and oppression of the British Crown - in the person of George III.

I wonder, do many people in America today ever think about how solitary the existence of these mountain folk was? And not just the people living in these ancient mountains, but the vast majority of the people on the continent?

Today, we think nothing of getting in our cars and driving to the next town for business (or pleasure). We travel at 65 (or more) miles per hour on the Interstate highways. For example, I have dear friends who live a little more than 40 miles from the Secret Lair (aka '73 Winnebago), and I try to visit them as often as I am able (and have the bucks for gas to get there and back). It takes about 45 minutes to get from here to there.

Back "in the day" it would have been a full day's travel - or more. And yet our forebears, despite the extreme isolation under which most lived, banded together and fought for freedom.

The settlers living in the High Country and the easternmost Cumberland plateau were relatively untouched by the war raging in the flatlands to the east until the British major Patrick Ferguson issued a statement that said, in part, "Therefore, if you do not desist in your opposition to the British arms, I will march my men over the mountains, hang your leaders, and lay waste to your country with fire and sword." Under the leadership of Col. John Sevier, they formed the Overmountain Men(wiki link, but it's accurate), marched across the mountains and were instrumental in the defeat of the British at the battle of King's Mountain ( a bit west of Charlotte).

Today, by contrast, we sit at our computers, log on to “friendly” blogs, and bitch and gripe about the oppressions and repressions of our current government - in the person of our very own George III.

The spirits of the Overmountain Men, and all others who have fought (and died) for the cause of Liberty, are angry at us for our relative complacency. What will it take for us to get off our McAsses and do something?

Don't Forget to Pack Your Placards!

The latest Hermit video from Davis Fleetwood.

Constitutional Convention in the 21st Century

So I have decided to further develop my previous post, as I honestly believe that something must be done to correct the "ship of state" as it continues to wander off the course that the Founding Fathers intended. Freedom is being attacked from both outside and inside the country, and, while I don't have children of my own, I fear for the next generation (this, despite claims by the Christianists that agnostics have no morals).

An aside on "Christianists": why do they ignore or deny the words of Christ? As regular readers know, I do not ascribe to any religion and, as an agnostic, believe that one cannot know whether 'god' exists. I do, however, have a working knowledge of the teachings of JC - having been raised in the home of a Methodist minister, how could it be otherwise - and, to a lesser extent, knowledge of the teachings of non Judeo-Christian belief systems. As I have said before, one can believe the message without worshiping the messenger or subscribing to a set of religious rules. The Christianists (and all fundamental extremists) just don't get this....

Anyway, that is a topic for another post. I'm here today to expand on the possible topics for a new Constitutional Convention. First, let me restate the ideas that I put forth in the previous post:

• Re-establish the limitations on the Executive Branch (meaning, destroy the idea of a unitary executive).
• Reform and, hopefully, eliminate the Electoral College (vote totals are no longer carried via horse courier to Washington).
• Codify term limits (a total of three for Representatives and two for Senators, thereby eliminating the "professional politician"). Jefferson, Adams, and other Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, not careerists.
• Re-establish pre-existing Constitutional guarantees that have been usurped by the Current Occupant and his malAdministration.
• Alter the term of office of the President to no longer than four years and establish the concept of "no confidence" votes.
• Ban all private (personal and corporate) donations to political campaigns. One person, one vote - no extra clout for being wealthy.
• Require that media outlets provide free, equal, and limited time to all candidates during the campaign cycle.
• Reform the party system to eliminate the built in safeguards against the formation of viable additional parties. Democracy is not binary!
• Shorten the length of the election cycle. No candidate may express an intention to run for office more than one year before the election date, and may not file for office more than six months before the primary; primaries are to be held no more than two months before the general election.

Taking them one (or so) at a time, we have:

Re-establish the limitations on the Executive Branch (meaning, destroy the idea of a unitary executive).

This nation was created out of a rebellion against the excesses of a king. 231 years ago, the majority of the colonies in North America rebelled against their oppressive ruler, King George III of Great Britain. In their Declaration of Independence, they compiled a long list of grievances to explain this action.

Today, we, the inheritors of that rebellion, suffer under the oppression of another George III. First, there was George Washington, then George H. W. Bush, and now George W. Bush. It is time to once again take up the banner of rebellion.

Just as in the first American Revolution, this rebellion must be initiated by those most effected by the excesses of the "monarch". The most wide reaching effect of the current morally bankrupt malAdministration is the attempt to establish a "unitary executive". This is an unconstitutional idea nurtured by
Dick Cheney ever since his old boss Richard Nixon overstepped the bounds and was cut off at the knees (politically speaking).

I can't say that I know Cheney's mind on this matter, but I believe he wishes to establish this precedent in order to further increase the profit margin of his cronies - and himself. And without the interference of those pesky little Congresscritters, the executive branch can award no-bid contracts and create signing statements to further fill the overflowing coffers of Halliburton, Exxon/Mobile, etc., etc..

How is this any different from a king granting charters or bestowing nobility (with the concomitant overlordship of the serfs in the Duchy) to his preferred pals?

Hand in hand with this goes the following proposal:

Re-establish pre-existing Constitutional guarantees that have been usurped by the Current Occupant and his malAdministration.

Most of the desecration of the Constitution that has occurred during the reign of the new George III is directly related to the attempt to establish the doctrine of the unitary executive. Even the implementation of the "Patriot" Act (and has ever there been a more oxymoronic name?) by the compliant - and cowed - 107th Congress was a bowing to the wishes of the Executive Branch (and Cheney).

Nearly every single thing that has followed that questionable decision (and the list is way too long and depressing for me to go into) has been a slap in the face of, if not a downright illegal attempt to subvert, the Constitution - up to, and including, the recent syncophantic update of the FISA laws. If these corruptions of the Constitution are not rectified, it will mean the end of the nation that Washington, Jefferson, Adams, et. al established 231 years ago - even though the name, United States of America, will live on.

Reform and, hopefully, eliminate the Electoral College (vote totals are no longer carried via horse courier to Washington).

This one is, I believe, a no-brainer - especially in light of the Great 2000 Election Month Debacle. For those of you who may have forgotten, more people voted for Al Gore than for Dumbya. The Constitution, as it stands, grants the "several states" the ability to allocate electoral votes as they wish, and 48 of the 50 have gone with a "winner take all" system. This has had the effect of disenfranchising a huge minority of voters in those states.

As a personal example, my (blue) vote for President has never really counted - simply because I live in a red state. And it wouldn't count even if 49.999% of the population of North Carolina voted for the Democrat - the Republican candidate would still get all fifteen electoral votes.

There are those who criticize this idea because it would mean that the mega blocks of California (which, pet peeve, is not the "largest state" - that would be Alaska - but rather the most populous one) and New York electoral votes would no longer be cast for the Democrat. Tough shit, I say. If the majority of the country votes for a specific candidate, that candidate wins!

The reformation/elimination of the Electoral College also ties into this proposal:

Reform the party system to eliminate the built in safeguards against the formation of viable additional parties. Democracy is not binary!

As I said in this post, the two-party paradigm has got to go. The George Washington farewell address linked in that post is very informative with respect to the desire of the man who some people view as the Founding Father of the country.
If anyone objects to this idea, simply point them to Washington's own words.
The "money" quote from Washington's speech is:

However combinations or associations of the above description [of the rise of political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

An objection I foresee to the implementation of these two alterations to the political process would be that no candidate would ever receive a majority of votes in a Presidential election. My response is: So what? In today's political landscape, less than half of the potential voters even bother to go to the polls, so the President is elected by a portion of a portion of the population of the United States.

What would be more accurately representative of the desires of the nation as a whole would be a Parliamentary setup, such as Great Britain, Ireland, Israel, and India, etc. have. We could either go with the option of coalitions (as those nations do) in order to choose the next head of state, or simply say that a plurality "wins" the election. Personally, I would prefer the former to the latter.

Codify term limits (a total of three for Representatives and two for Senators, thereby eliminating the "professional politician"). Jefferson, Adams, and other Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, not careerists.

This idea would do as much, I believe, towards eliminating the corrupt nature of politics as any other one thing that could be done. By implementing draconian term limits, we would tend to get candidates that have the interests of the people as a whole - rather than the promotion of ideology or corporate profits, which is what we have today. In other words, we would have a Congress made up of servants of the country rather than servants of personal power or industry.

An obvious objection to this idea would come from people who have long serving Representatives or Senators. Again, a personal anecdote. You may remember Jesse Helms, who was a Senator from North Carolina for... well, it seemed like forever, but was "only" 30 years - and he's probably no longer a Senator only because he suffers from debilitating disease and chose not to run in 2002. During an argument with a dear friend of mine, who was a Helms supporter, I asked how said friend could continue to vote for a man who represented an ideology that was anathema to the friend's personal beliefs. The friend responded by saying, "Helms has influence that benefits the state."

Basically, my friend was willing to see other friends vilified and "othered" in exchange for pork barrel benefits. To quote the Bible, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Matthew 16:26)"

Alter the term of office of the President to no longer than four years and establish the concept of "no confidence" votes.

In the comment thread to my earlier post, sbgypsy said (I believe in response to this topic):

I agree with everything except term limits set in stone. If we'd had them then, FDR would never have been able to give us what he did. I think that recall ability - grassroots recall ability - would be sufficient, without term limits.

I suppose I didn't make myself clear in the statement (or else I'm misinterpreting her comment). I am not proposing limiting the President to one term, but saying that the length of each single term be redefined as no longer than four years. The inability of the current Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Dumbya is all the argument I need in favor of the concept of "no confidence" and, as she said, recall.

If, on the other hand, her comment is referring to term limits on congresscritters, I still stick with my belief that we need citizen legislators rather than professional politicians. As I said in a comment thread somewhere out there on the Interwebs, there is a plethora of good people in this country who would put the needs of the many over the wants of the few.

(If sbgypsy should return and wish to further discuss this, I would be more than happy to do so - as the (fictional representation of) Stephen Hopkins - Rhode Island delegate to the Second Continental Congress - said "I've never seen, heard, nor smelled an idea that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about" [from the movie 1776])

Ban all private (personal and corporate) donations to political campaigns. One person, one vote - no extra clout for being wealthy.
Require that media outlets provide free, equal, and limited time to all candidates during the campaign cycle.
Shorten the length of the election cycle. No candidate may express an intention to run for office more than one year before the election date, and may not file for office more than six months before the primary; primaries are to be held no more than two months before the general election.

These three ideas all go hand in hand to reform the election process. Also from the previous post's comment thread, Lynn said:

I dont think in a general way, looking over your list, that extreme regulation is the answer to all. I dont think for example that restricting the length of time that people can campaign makes sense. Seems like it would, but a shorter campaign time benefits the rich and hurts people who need to work a long time to raise money and gain notoriety. Your idea hurts the poor and the obscure.

I disagree with that, because if all private money were banned from the system and only a set amount of government funds (from that box you may or may not check on your tax forms) were equally distributed among each of the candidates (both presidential and congressional - although I would give the presidential campaigns a much larger share, due to the national aspects of the campaign), and equal access to media provided - remember, the public owns the airwaves, after all - then the playing field would be leveled, not tilted toward the rich.

I think we're all already tired of the 2008 Presidential Campaign, and the election is still fifteen months away. Frankly, I'm surprised that someone hasn't already declared to be a candidate for the 2012 election. Or the 2016. That may sound ridiculous, but it's where things are heading. The way things are now, a five year old could declare her intentions to run for President in 2040 and begin campaigning. Imagine the name recognition she'd have by the time the election rolled around!


Keep in mind that all of this (with the exception of the reader comments quoted) is merely the ideas in the head of this old dog. What I would hope to see is a discussion among people - a trading of ideas and playing off each other's thoughts - in the hopes of actually doing something to change the corrupt and unfair system that we have now, rather than just bitching and moaning about it.

I now open myself to comments and criticisms from my adoring public (both of you).


ETA 12 August 2009: Since I originally posted this, I switched to a different commenting system. The original comments on this post are located here.

The Tree of Liberty is Dying

When George W. Bush was installed as Occupant of the Oval Office in 2001, I began to have bad feelings about the state of the Republic. Beginning with Dick Cheney's "Energy Task Force" meetings and backing down from the Kyoto Protocol, the administration placed the health of business interests above that of the people. As I wrote, in the Rapid River Literary Magazine, at the time:

This is not at all surprising, considering that he views himself as Chief Executive Officer of the United States. I find that odd as well, since the ballot I used listed candidates for President of the United States of America, not CEO of USA, Inc.. This is also not surprising, when viewed alongside his other administration appointments and decisions. The Administration Energy policy was developed by the oil industry. Cabinet members whose sphere of influence is the environment have deep and long ties to the same sector of business.
The Administration's statement's concerning power shortages in the West spoke only of building more power plants, not of responsible energy use. I find it unconscionable and incredibly stupid that the withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord was made, "because it would be harmful to American business interests." Is the definition of America business or people? How can you Americans allow this man to baldfacedly lie?!
Yes, the agreement would be detrimental to business - BECAUSE BUSINESS CARES NOT A WHIT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, OR CONTINUED LIFE ON EARTH, BUT ONLY ABOUT PROFIT!!!! Is the president (and I refuse to show respect by capitalizing the title) answerable to the People or not?
As far as I am concerned, this is an impeachable offense -a total disregard for the citizens of this country, and a complete kowtow to the gods of industry. Teddy Roosevelt must be spinning furiously in his grave (if you don't know what I'm referring to here, look up his anti-business stance in a history book). The Supreme Court elected president has insisted on denying a large (and growing) body of evidence concerning the effect that pollution is having on the world. The United States is the number one polluter of the environment on the entire planet, and his response is to build more power plants! What the Hell?!?!?

(I offer the above extended quote to show that I am not a "Johnny-come-lately" to the cause of impeachment)

Since that time, we have seen

• tax cuts for the richest,
• gross legislative overreactions to the al-Qaeda attacks of 11 Sept 2001, under the guise of the "Patriot Act",
• a justified invasion of Afghanistan that morphed into an unjustified and immoral invasion of Iraq,
  
• more tax cuts for the upper income brackets,
  
• domestic spying (in the form of warrentless wiretaps),
• extra-constitutional imprisonment of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo,
• federal subsidies to Big Oil - at a time when they were reaping record profits,
• more tax cuts for the wealthy,
• passing control of Medicaid drug coverage to Big Pharma,
• a reprehensible lack of response to the inundation of New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast (except for the wealthy who have beach houses there) during and after Hurricane Katrina,
• attempts to privatize Social Security,
• and the annulment of habeas corpus.
• oh, yeah, more tax cuts for those who needed them the least,
• and many more....
  

Well, the hits on the America-that-used-to-be are coming fast and furious now.

In early May, the White House released the National Continuation Policy. On 3 July, the Current Occupant commuted the sentence of "Scooter" Libby, in an act that may well have been illegal - as Libby was convicted of perjuring himself in an effort to protect the Executive Branch, (putatively) headed by non other than the Current Occupant.

On Tuesday, the White House released "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq", that allows the Executive Branch to " ’starve out’ a person by completely freezing their assets, without trial, without the need to present evidence, and without appeal."

And just yesterday, two more attacks on Freedom in America.

First, a letter from the Pentagon to Hillary Clinton was leaked, that claims she "reinforces enemy propaganda" by suggesting that the Pentagon start plans for withdrawal from Iraq. This letter is enough evidence for Senator Clinton's assets to be seized under the aforementioned Executive Order - as well as anyone who has supported her.

Next, the administration claimed that "that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege."

This whole - totally unconstitutional - "Unitary Executive" business is totally out of control. Comparisons to fascism and
the Roman Empire are no longer exaggerated. If anything, they are not strong enough.

The Congress, and the Judicial Branch, must exert their constitutionally mandated powers of checks and balances and end these anti-democracy and un-American behaviors of the Bush malAdministration.

If the other two branches of "our" government don't rise to the occasion, it will be left to "we the people" to take matters into our own hands and put into practice what Thomas Jefferson said two centuries ago.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

UPDATE: Cheney takes over - temporarily (yeah, right)....

Hyperbole Weakens Debate

From Josh Marshall, via Shakesville, I read the following:

“I must say this really does make my day. ‘None of the Above’ has surged into the lead in the new GOP primary poll out from AP/Ipsos. The only thing funnier is that this is even surprising. McCain’s campaign has imploded. Giuliani’s the fading pro-choice contender, which is sort of redundant. People seem to be catching on to the fact that Fred Thompson is a one-term senator and lobbyist not Reagan 2.0. And that leaves you with Mitt Romney, the avatar of transcendent phoney-baloneyism. Okay, I’m done.”

Melissa adds a clip of Nelson's (from the Simpsons) signature "Ha ha!". While I join in the laughter most wholeheartedly, and it is most satisfying to see the discord and dissatisfaction in the GOP, I must object to the misleading wording of the quote.


From the actual poll, (page 9 of the pdf) we find that "None" is actually only 8%:

Other 2
None 8
(DK/NS) 15

(once again, I apologize for my inability to align a table in my posts)

You may say that I'm picking nits here, but the wording is an exaggeration. I highly respect Marshall and Talking Points Memo (and read it every day), but by using hyperbole in his posts he is, IMHO, lowering himself to the level of the Faux Noise Channel.

I understand the temptation, but what we need in this country is more reason and less emotional reaching.

While I'm on the subject, I find the same tactics being employed by many people and websites that are left-leaning (and even totally fallen over to the left). A prime example of this is Robert Scheer - both on his website Truthdig and in his regular role as a commentator on the NPR program "Left, Right and Center". Scheer's arguments are less dissuasive because of his propensity to rant. I find it personally bothersome when I can more readily agree with the (in my opinion) far right Tony Blankley - whose positions are often antithetical to my own - simply because he puts forth reasoned arguments. I find myself feeling the same way when watching "The McLaughlin Group", which is even more disturbing because I sometimes find myself in agreement with none other than Pat Buchanon. Ick.

The Case For Impeachment

A few days ago, I posted an email received from the Give 'Em Hell Harry website, that asked me (and all who received the email) to express our anger at the commutation of the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby by contacting the White House. My online response was to post a flippant statement, to wit:

Dear Senator Reid,

I'll make a deal with you. You press for impeachment with no whining about political costs, and I'll gladly sign on to your toothless complaint campaign.

Disgustedly yours,

*****

Dr. Zaius disagreed with my theory (his post is not pro or con re: impeachment, but a well developed critique of those who declaim that the current Congress is "do nothing" - if you haven't read it, do so now!), and rightly so, as it was not really a theory - rather, it was an incomplete throwaway statement made because, well, mainly, I wanted to post the email to which I (apparently) objected.

It was not so much that I objected to the email and the sentiments it expressed. It was, instead, that I know deep down that even if every single citizen of the US were to complain to the WH about the commutation, it would make no difference.

Many others on the left have written on this - generally concluding that the commutation was in aid of protecting the Administration from the possibility that Libby would roll over and "spill the beans" on the machinations that led to the outing of a covert CIA agent, in order to marginalize former ambassador Joe Wilson's debunking of one of the key reasons we were given for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein.

Those on the right who have written on this have, for the most part, claimed that either Libby was unfairly prosecuted (and somehow in a partisan manner - even though the prosecutor and judges were all Republican appointees) - or that the sentence, for the correctly adjudicated perjury, was excessive.

I'm not going to get in to that discussion. If you have somehow missed it, just google "Libby commutation" (as of this writing, that search returns ~ 1,600,000 hits). What I want to talk about (finally, he's getting to his point!) is the growing desire on the part of the American public to impeach Cheney and Bush.

From what I have seen, there are basically three camps on this. One, "Get the bastards out of office!" Two, "I wish we could get the bastards out of office, but it ain't gonna happen, so why waste the time and money?" And, three, "This is nothing but partisan political theater!"

"Get the bastards out of office!"

The people gathered around this campfire view the entire Bush Administration as a collection of hubris laden criminals who cheated their way into office (and re-election) and have willfully ignored and trampled upon the Constitution in their desire to further enrich themselves and their fellow businesspeople. From the secretive Energy Task Force - composed (as far as we have been able to determine) entirely of oil and other energy executives and operatives - all the way through dismissal of the Kyoto Protocol, tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, the attacks of 11 Sept 2001, the Patriot Act, the buildup to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, running roughshod over the Republican controlled Congress, the ever-changing reasons for and goals of our involvement in Iraq (although the oil revenue goals have not changed a bit), etc., etc., etc.; this camp of Constitutional idealists sees nothing but avarice and deceit in the current Executive Branch (and whatever the Constitutional location du jour is of the Office of the Vice President).

In the minds of those clamoring for "impeachment über alle", nothing is more important than holding BushCo to task.

"I wish we could get the bastards out of office, but it ain't gonna happen, so why waste the time and money?"

The drum circle that surrounds this bonfire agrees with, for the most part, everything that the GtBOoO camp says, but looks at the makeup of the Congress (specifically the Senate) and has concluded that the impeachment process will never come to fruition - no matter how much evidence may be forthcoming.

And it also seems that that their greatest fear is a backlash from the voters come 2008 if impeachment fails.

"This is nothing but partisan political theater!"

Those that crowd around this sputtering, smoking fire built of green wood are the ones who put Party before State, and who will never agree, even should God him/herself appear before them and say otherwise, that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." They sit on their piles of money, assault rifles in hand, and stare in abject fear at the other two camps in the distance - knowing that, if those two should somehow join forces, their influence would be virtually wiped out. This camp excels in productions of the same political theater which they claim, loudly, on Fox News and other willing media pawns, that the "other side" is trying to initiate. They know that their only hope of survival is to inflame the politically naive and susceptible and to continue to convince those same people that those who have ever done all they could to "keep the masses in their place" are actually champions of those same masses.


So, the question you are probably asking is, in which camp does Phydeaux wish to pitch his tent?

In the comment thread at the linked Dr. Z post, I said (in part):

I do feel that to allow the Current Occupant to end his term of office and retire to his Paraguayan Safe Zone without answering for his disdain of the principles of American Democracy would do irreparable harm to the nation - and the memories of all who have fought (and even died) in support of those principles throughout our history.

to which, the good Doctor responded:

And I think that it is safe to say that the majority of us feel the same. My question is, is it logical or even sane to push for impeachment at this time? What would use for evidence, for example? What evidence of a crime do we have that Bush can't slime his way out of? Especially with Cheney or Roberts as the judge? And a 50% vote, because we have one man down. I ask you, how do we go about this logically? Perhaps you have an answer that I can't see, but at present I have not heard anything that sounds reasonable as of yet.

I will take this opportunity to respond to those questions.


"[I]s it logical or even sane to push for impeachment at this time?"

At the risk of being labeled an "emotional liberal", it is my belief that we may have reached a point where it is necessary to risk emotion (and even sanity) in order to protect the Constitution and the continued existence of Freedom that all who came before us in the history of the United States worked so hard to establish and maintain.

Remember the holiday we celebrated just last week? Was it logical or even sane for the Continental Congress (and the people of the Colonies) to declare themselves in rebellion against the most powerful Empire on the planet? The men in that chamber in Philadelphia pledged "to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Can we, who have received the benefits of their actions, do any less?



"What would [we] use for evidence, for example? What evidence of a crime do we have that Bush can't slime his way out of? Especially with Cheney or Roberts as the judge?"

As I am neither a lawyer nor privilege to inside information, I cannot answer the first. However, it is incumbent upon the Congress - as a Constitutional mandate - to oversee the Executive Branch (and Cheney). In other words, it is their duty to pursue this matter, no matter what the outcome or consequences are. A debate on Articles of Impeachment would bring out the evidence (even though the matter will inevitably have to go through the courts), whatever that may be. If the evidence proves to be insufficient, then the Articles will be voted down. Only then would the matter go to the Senate.

As to the last of this group of questions - if the case were to make it to the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Roberts) would preside. Cheney would have no role. And, as far as your fears regarding Chief Justice Roberts being the presiding judge are concerned - I have to believe that this would be an instance (even if there were no other) that he would have to rule only in his intended role - as a non-partisan adjudicator. To do otherwise would be to blatantly deny the role of not only himself, but the entire Supreme Court, as the final arbiters of law in the US.

Should he choose that route, however, I believe that it would signal the beginnings of a new American Revolution - because it would show that the entire system of government has been operating as a sham.


I have no idea what the outcome of any impeachment proceedings would be, but I would state again that I believe that it is in the best interests of the nation for the Congress to take up the matter.

And if, at the end of the day, the Senate fails to convict (assuming that sufficient evidence is brought forth) on the basis of partisanship - it is my fervent desire that the Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and all other parties and engaged citizens will take every opportunity to point out that Justice and the Constitution were subverted by the Republican Party.


To conclude, I would like to say that I hold Dr. Zaius in high regard and that I hope that my words will be taken in the spirit in which they are sent - merely as answers to his questions, not as criticisms of his statements.

Also, as part of my pledge to PortlyDyke, I will be sending my Senators and Congressman an edited and likely expanded copy of this post. I urge each of you to take PD's pledge and do the same (in your own words, of course - but feel free to quote me, if you must).

What Would the Founding Fathers Think?

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

I can think of no other statement that better expresses the danger of Theocracy. And no better counter to those who claim that the United States of America is a "Christian country". Except, possibly, this one:

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

And yet, a significant portion of the population of this country denies the second quote and seeks to institute a Theocracy. I have written before on the subject of "America as a Christian" nation and don't wish to repeat myself, but perhaps I should.

America was founded, for the most part, by people who had left Europe to escape persecution. The Puritans in New England, the Quakers (and others) in the Middle Colonies, and the Scots and Scots-Irish in the South all came here because of two things: the promise of land and to escape religious persecution. They were all 'others' in their homelands, and looked upon - at best - as second class citizens, or - at worst - as heretics.

One of the main concerns of the fledgling United States, after winning independence from Great Britain, was to assure that they would no longer suffer from religious persecution. This is why it is the First Amendment to the Constitution that says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People often look at this one amendment as three separate items, but they are not. They must be viewed of a piece - co-equal. Those that wish a return to "our Christian roots" or to establish a Theocracy (though they will never use that name) with the Ten Commandments as the supreme law of the land, are guilty of no less than treason. That's right, treason.

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution says, in part: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Actively espousing ideas that are against the Constitution is, indeed, "levying War against" the United States - and in a more insidious manner than Radical Islam is.

As Sinclair Lewis said, “When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” Theocracy and Fascism have a lot in common. Both depend on the suspension of reason, and the blind adherence to belief. Two years before his death, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter, "Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind." The spirit of the Sage of Monticello is no doubt moaning in grief at what is currently happening in the nation that he helped to found. Televangelists openly pushing for the initiation of the "end times" and the Current Occupant of the White House holding that he has been "chosen by God" to lead the country. How far the country has fallen from its' founding as a bastion of freedom.

I end, as I began, with a quote from Jefferson (emphasis mine):

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

(Blog Against Theocracy)

In Which the Herd Follows Blithely

In a recent post, which contained a reprint of an opinion piece I wrote several years ago, I talked about the fact that our prisons are filled to overflowing with non-violent drug offenders - to such an extent that violent offenders (especially rapists) are being released early to make room for the newest inmates.

Reader Shaun commented in part:

Where are all the commercials trying to dissuade people from raping other people? I have watched more television than I'm sure is appropriate or healthy and I have never seen one commercial against the ghastly crime of rape. I see plenty of commercials where people are warned of the evils of MJ.

To which I said:

I'd never thought about the fact that while there are anti-drug ads, there aren't anti-rape or anti-robbery or -murder ads.... I may have to delve into that a bit more.

And so the thoughts began churning in my (over-crowded) mind. The more I thought about it, the more the dichotomy troubled me. Why are there adverts that decry drug use? Surely the fact that it's illegal is enough to dissuade people from travelling down that path. No, wait. Robbery, murder, and rape are all illegal - and yet those things happen all the time. And so, too, does drug use happen on a constant basis. So why spend taxpayers' money to attempt to dissuade people from one and not the other?

It seems to me that there are two paths to take. Either produce advertisements with anti -murder, -robbery, and -rape themes to air alongside the anti-drug ads, or stop airing the anti-drug ads. At this point, Shaun graced me with another visit and said, "The depths that our government is willing to dive down to are quite illogical to say the least. If the commercials worked,..."

Oh, that's right, the anti-drug ads have been proven to not only not dissuade people from using drugs, but also to desensitize them to the perils of drug use.

Shaun then continued,

it seems to me other federal agencies would be desirous to actually try to dissuade people from committing crimes that actually have a victim. By not producing commercials of that nature they refute the supposed efficacy of the ads they themselves unctuously hail as being effective. I am not an intellectually ponderous man, but IF a government is necessary I wish that the constituents of said government would at the very least match my pedestrian level of intelligence.

Well. Leaving aside the fact that Shaun either is, in fact, a patently intelligent person, or, at the very least, knows his way around a thesaurus (and I do believe it is the former, not the latter), we can see that he is also very correct. He also exhibits Libertarian beliefs, with which (in this instance) I have no argument. The mere fact that the gummint doesn't use ad campaigns to "fight" other crimes just goes to show, in my opinion, that they know the ads don't work.

Or is the government being - hold on tight, now - hypocritical? I know, you need to go lay down on the fainting couch for a moment. Go ahead, I’ll wait....

You’re back? Okay, where was I? Oh, yes, the rank hypocrisy of the Government of the US of A. It truly knows no bounds, does it? Lobbyists in positions of authority in the very Departments they lobbied in, draft dodgers in charge of war planning, brainless do nothings in charge of Justice - oh, that last isn’t hypocrisy, just stupidity.

What the War on Drugs(tm) and its useless ad campaign boils down to is (gasp) political theater. “Let’s show the sheeple - I mean, people - that we’re Doing Something About Drugs(c)!”

Never mind that those incarcerated are disproportionately men of color.

Never mind that sentencing mandates are skewed to more adversely effect that same demographic.

Never mind that nonagenarians are being killed in drug raids - at the wrong address.

Never mind that people go along with it.

Never mind that murderers, rapists, etc. are being released to make more room for “druggies”.

Just. Never. Mind.

I am Shakesvllle!

"In all my years I've never seen, heard, nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yes, I'm for debating anything!" - 'Stephen Hopkins', 1776 (the movie)

My most favoritest place in the whole interwebs tubes, Shakesville, has been the victim of a "Denial Of Service" (DOS) attack and has been offline for [as of this writing] a day and a half. Apparently some people just don't get the whole freedom of speech thing.

What I don't get is the point of the attack. I mean, I get that it originates in the small brained and small minded, but what, exactly, do these cretins hope to accomplish? It's not like Shakesville is the only place on teh internets that speaks to issues such as feminism. A Google search for "feminism" returns ~15,300,000 hits!

They might as well try to move a beach one grain of sand at a time!

And Shakesville is so much more than 'just' a feminist site. It is a place where dialog takes place. Those of us who frequent the place go there not merely to applaud the words that are posted (although we do) but to internalize the ideas and to learn to be better people. How does the search for knowledge - to better oneself - harm any one?

What I really don't get (and I have tried and tried) is how anyone can feel threatened by the thought of people - all people - being treated equally. I understand - in the clinical sense - that equal treatment would eviscerate the (false) power that these misogynists feel they have. I suppose (and this is the part that truly makes no sense to me) that without the power that patriarchy grants them, these people would feel as if they were worthless. As though their only value is as an oppressor.

And the fact that it is likely that these attackers are probably self-proclaimed 'Christians', just makes me wonder even more. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus say, "And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Mark 12:31, KJV)? 'Neighbour' doesn't just mean the people who live in the houses on either side of yours, people, it means everybody! And by the way, for all you 'Christians' out there who disavow everything that the Christ espoused in your desire to spread hatred... oh, never mind, you're not listening anyway. Obviously. How else could you have so perverted the words of the "Prince of Peace" into a litany of hatred and exclusion?

I honestly feel sorry for you. You have been so twisted by the perversion of the message that your 'elders' have taught you, that, when the day comes that you stand before the Ultimate Adjudicator, you will honestly not understand why you are to be denied access to the party.

Perhaps, though, I am falsely attributing the 'orientation' of the attackers. Perhaps the perpetrators are... are... ummm... you know, I can't think of another explanation for such behavior. We all live in an unfortunately patriarchal world, but those of us who aren't indoctrinated into feelings of hatred when our "beliefs" are threatened - well, we just don't get it. How can you behave so illogically?

Hmm, I think I just answered my own question.

I have digressed (I think). So let me try to get the train back on the track by saying to those who think they can silence the speech of the feminists, and teh gays, and all the open minded and inclusive people of the world... dream on! (Why is it, by the way, that we who don't claim to follow (or in many cases, even believe in the existence of) Jesus behave more in accordance with his teachings than many (most?) of those who do?)

Or better yet, just close the gates of your compound, unplug your computers and TV's, and pray to your twisted and false deity until he comes for you.

Oh, and make sure you have lots of canned goods at hand, cause you're going to be waiting for a looong time.

Michael Griffin is Full of Shit

In an interview yesterday on NPR's "Morning Edition", NASA Administrator Michael Griffin (text excerpts and audio here) stated: "I'm aware that global warming exists....Whether that is a long term concern or not, I can't say." He goes on to explain that

I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

In taking a look at Griffin's bio, I see that he has multiple degrees in engineering and physics. He does not, however, list any credentials in climatology, anthropology, or history. And, in my mind, to make a statement like "...to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had..." without considering human anthropology and history is... disingenuous... at best.

The Earth's climate is in a constant state of flux. It swings from Ice Ages to warm periods. This has been shown via ice cores and dendrochronology (the study of growth rings in trees) and other ways, and has been going on for all of the history of the planet. However, it has remained relatively stable for the last ten to twelve thousand years - not coincidentally, the time in which human civilization has flourished.

Anthropologists will tell you that humans (physically) have remained basically unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years. But it is only in the mostly stable recent era that we have developed civilization - there is some argument over that (see Graham Hancock, et al), but the 'accepted' timeline shows that we went from hunter-gatherers in circa 10,000 BC to what we have today.

If the human body and brain have been the same for hundreds of thousands of years, what other explanation than the stable climate of the last 10k - 12k years can there be for the rise of civilization? It is this backdrop, this setting, under which we have flourished.

Griffin said

I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

I say, You're full of shit, Mr. Griffin. It is only because of "the climate that we have right here today, right now" that we are even capable of having this discussion. If you could get your head out of the collective ass of BushCo, you would be able to see that.

.

Ethanol - Still a Myth!

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post entitled The Ethanol Myth. Today I found this article:

Politicians Making Fools of us All: The Case of Ethanol as Motor Fuel

The author, John Chuckman, puts forth the facts much better than I did. Oh, and he doesn't mention hydrogen.

Happy "Mission Accomplished" Day

from Ava Lowery, a teenage peace activist from Alabama at peacetakescourage.com . A teenager, not even old enough to vote yet, is more involved in trying to correct the wrongs in this nation than millions of her elders. Take a look at her site, especially some of the crap she has had to put up with.