HAVE NUKES, WILL USE THEM

I know I’ve asked this question before, but it’s time for me to ask it again. What am I missing here? Why is it that nations which already have nuclear weapons can demand that nations which do not have them cannot also develop them? Not only that, but the UN seems to support that point of view.

If the nuclear nations would also agree to destroy their nuclear weapons at the same time, I could understand their demands. They have not made that offer, to my knowledge. On the contrary, Bush (it is very difficult for me to write his name or his present office without wincing) stated early on in his regime that we had nuclear weapons and he was fully prepared to use them. And he has had new nuclear weapons developed to add to his arsenal.

If you were the head of a country without nuclear weapons and you were threatened by a man who evidently thinks of himself as led by God, what would your reaction be?

Cliff Floyd says....

1.

It was a dark hour indeed on Thursday when the United States Senate voted to end the constitutional republic and transform the country into a "Leader-State," giving the president and his agents the power to capture, torture and imprison forever anyone -American citizens included - whom they arbitrarily decide is an "enemy combatant." This also includes those who merely give "terrorism" some kind of "support," defined so vaguely that many experts say it could encompass legal advice, innocent gifts to charities or even political opposition to US government policy within its draconian strictures.

All of this is bad enough - a sickening and cowardly surrender of liberty not seen in a major Western democracy since the Enabling Act passed by the German Reichstag in March 1933. But it is by no means the full extent of our degradation. In reality, the darkness is deeper, and more foul, than most people imagine. For in addition to the dictatorial powers of seizure and torment given by Congress on Thursday to George W. Bush - powers he had already seized and exercised for five years anyway, even without this fig leaf of sham legality - there is a far more sinister imperial right that Bush has claimed - and used - openly, without any demur or debate from Congress at all: ordering the "extrajudicial killing" of anyone on earth that he and his deputies decide -arbitrarily, without charges, court hearing, formal evidence, or appeal - is an "enemy combatant."

That's right; from the earliest days of the Terror War -September 17, 2001, to be exact - Bush has claimed the peremptory power of life and death over the entire world. If he says you're an enemy of America, you are. If he wants to imprison you and torture you, he can. And if he decides you should die, he'll kill you. This is not hyperbole, liberal paranoia, or "conspiracy theory": it's simply a fact, reported by the mainstream media, attested by senior administration figures, recorded in official government documents - and boasted about by the president himself, in front of Congress and a national television audience.

And although the Republic snuffing act just passed by Congress does not directly address Bush's royal prerogative of murder, it nonetheless strengthens it and enshrines it in law. For the measure sets forth clearly that the designation of an "enemy combatant" is left solely to the executive branch; neither Congress nor the courts have any say in the matter. When this new law is coupled with the existing "Executive Orders" authorizing "lethal force" against arbitrarily designated "enemy combatants," it becomes, quite literally, a license to kill - with the seal of Congressional approval.

How arbitrary is this process by which all our lives and liberties are now governed? Dave Niewert at Orcinus has unearthed a remarkable admission of its totally capricious nature. In an December 2002 story in the Washington Post, then-Solicitor General Ted Olson described the anarchy at the heart of the process with admirable frankness:

[There is no] requirement that the executive branch spell out its criteria for determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant.

There won't be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this. There will be judgments and instincts and evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the circumstances.

In other words, what is safe to do or say today might imperil your freedom or your life tomorrow. You can never know if you are on the right side of the law, because the "law" is merely the whim of the Leader and his minions: their "instincts" determine your guilt or innocence, and these flutterings in the gut can change from day to day. This radical uncertainty is the very essence of despotism - and it is now, formally and officially, the guiding principle of the United States government.

And underlying this edifice of tyranny is the prerogative of presidential murder. Perhaps the enormity of this monstrous perversion of law and morality has kept it from being fully comprehended. It sounds unbelievable to most people: a president ordering hits like a Mafia don? But that is our reality, and has been for five years. To overcome what seems to be a widespread cognitive dissonance over this concept, we need only examine the record - a record, by the way, taken entirely from publicly available sources in the mass media. There's nothing secret or contentious about it, nothing that any ordinary citizen could not know - if they choose to know it.

2.

Six days after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush signed a "presidential finding" authorizing the CIA to kill those individuals whom he had marked for death as terrorists. This in itself was not an entirely radical innovation; Bill Clinton's White House legal team had drawn up memos asserting the president's right to issue "an order to kill an individual enemy of the United States in self-defense," despite the legal prohibitions against assassination, the Washington Post reported in October 2001. The Clinton team based this ruling on the "inherent powers" of the "Commander in Chief" - that mythical, ever-elastic construct that Bush has evoked over and over to defend his own unconstitutional usurpations.

The practice of "targeted killing" was apparently never used by Clinton, however; despite the pro-assassination memos, Clinton followed the traditional presidential practice of bombing the hell out of a bunch of civilians whenever he wanted to lash out at some recalcitrant leader or international outlaw - as in his bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998, or the two massive strikes he launched against Iraq in 1993 and 1998, or indeed the death and ruin that was deliberately inflicted on civilian infrastructure in Serbia during that nation's collective punishment for the crimes of Slobodan Milosevic. Here, Clinton was following the example set by George H.W. Bush, who killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Panamanian civilians in his illegal arrest of Manuel Noriega in 1988, and Ronald Reagan, who killed Moamar Gadafy's adopted 2-year-old daughter and 100 other civilians in a punitive strike on Libya in 1986.

Junior Bush, of course, was about to outdo all those blunderbuss strokes with his massive air attacks on Afghanistan, which killed thousands of civilians, and the later orgy of death and destruction in Iraq. But he also wanted the power to kill individuals at will. At first, the assassination program was restricted to direct orders from the president aimed at specific targets, as suggested by the Clinton memos. But soon the arbitrary power of life and death was delegated to agents in the field, after Bush signed orders allowing CIA assassins to kill targets without seeking presidential approval for each attack, the Washington Post reported in December 2002. Nor was it necessary any longer for the president to approve each new name added to the target list; the "security organs" could designate "enemy combatants" and kill them as they saw fit. However, Bush was always keen to get the details about the agency's wetwork, administration officials assured the Post.

The first officially confirmed use of this power was the killing of an American citizen, along with several foreign nationals, by a CIA drone missile in Yemen on November 3, 2002. A similar strike occurred on December 4, 2005, when a CIA missile destroyed a house and purportedly killed Abu Hamza Rabia, a suspected al-Qaeda figure. But the only bodies found at the site were those of two children, the houseowner's son and nephew, Reuters reports. The grieving father denied any connection to terrorism. An earlier CIA strike on another house missed Rabia but killed his wife and children, Pakistani officials reported.

However, there is simply no way of knowing at this point how many people have been killed by American agents operating outside all judicial process. Most of the assassinations are carried out in secret: quietly, professionally. As a Pentagon document uncovered by the New Yorker in December 2002 revealed, the death squads must be "small and agile," and "able to operate clandestinely, using a full range of official and non-official cover arrangements to ... enter countries surreptitiously."

What's more, there are strong indications that the Bush administration has outsourced some of the contracts to outside operators. In the original Post story about the assassinations -in those first heady weeks after 9/11, when administration officials were much more open about "going to the dark side," as Cheney boasted on national television - Bush insiders told the paper that "it is also possible that the instrument of targeted killings will be foreign agents, the CIA's term for nonemployees who act on its behalf.

Here we find a deadly echo of the "rendition" program that has sent so many captives to torture pits in Syria, Egypt and elsewhere - including many whose innocence has been officially established, such as the Canadian businessman Maher Arar, German national Khalid El-Masri, UK native Mozzam Begg and many others. They had been subjected to imprisonment and torture despite their innocence, because of intelligence "mistakes." How many have fallen victim to Bush's hit squads on similar shaky grounds?

So here we are. Congress has just entrenched the principle of Bush's "unitary executive" dictatorship into law; and it is this principle that undergirds the assassination program. As I wrote in December, it's hard to believe that any genuine democracy would accept a claim by its leader that he could have anyone killed simply by labeling them an "enemy." It's hard to believe that any adult with even the slightest knowledge of history or human nature could countenance such unlimited, arbitrary power, knowing the evil it is bound to produce. Yet this is exactly what the great and good in America have done.

But this should come as no surprise. They have known about it all along, and have not only countenanced Bush's death squad, but even celebrated it. I'll end with one more passage from that December article, which sadly is even more apt for our degraded reality today. It was a depiction of the one of the most revolting scenes in recent American history: Bush's state of the Union address in January 2003, delivered live to the nation during the final warmongering frenzy before the rape of Iraq:

Trumpeting his successes in the Terror War, Bush claimed that "more than 3,000 suspected terrorists" had been arrested worldwide - "and many others have met a different fate." His face then took on the characteristic leer, the strange, sickly half-smile it acquires whenever he speaks of killing people: "Let's put it this way. They are no longer a problem."

In other words, the suspects - and even Bush acknowledged they were only suspects - had been murdered. Lynched. Killed by agents operating unsupervised in that shadow world where intelligence, terrorism, politics, finance and organized crime meld together in one amorphous, impenetrable mass. Killed on the word of a dubious informer, perhaps: a tortured captive willing to say anything to end his torment, a business rival, a personal foe, a bureaucrat looking to impress his superiors, a paid snitch in need of cash, a zealous crank pursuing ethnic, tribal or religious hatreds - or any other purveyor of the garbage data that is coin of the realm in the shadow world.

Bush proudly held up this hideous system as an example of what he called "the meaning of American justice." And the assembled legislators ... applauded. Oh, how they applauded! They roared with glee at the leering little man's bloodthirsty, B-movie machismo. They shared his sneering contempt for law - our only shield, however imperfect, against the blind, brute, ignorant, ape-like force of raw power. Not a single voice among them was raised in protest against this tyrannical machtpolitik: not that night, not the next day, not ever.

And now, in September 2006, we know they will never raise that protest. Oh, a few Democrats stood up at the last minute on Thursday to posture nobly about the dangers of the detainee bill -but only when they knew the it was certain to pass, when they had already given up their one weapon against it, the filibuster, in exchange for permission from their Republican masters to offer amendments that they also knew would fail. Had they been offering such speeches since October 2001, when the lineaments of Bush's presidential tyranny were already clear - or at any other point during the systematic dismantling of America's liberties over the past five years - these fine words might have had some effect.

Now the killing will go on. The tyranny that has entered upon the country will grow stronger, more brazen; the darkness will deepen. Whitman, thou should'st be living at this hour; America has need of thee.

George Bush and Values

George W. Bush is a fascinating, if terrifying, study in contradictions, a man who professes a strong belief in God, who has been responsible, to date, for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including as many of our own armed forces as were killed by the “terrorists” on 9/11, not to mention mostly innocents.

He has VALUES, the first of which is his own persona and the legacy which he will leave for history. Most often when he comes to a podium to make a speech on a serious matter, he approaches with his little smirk and wink at someone in the audience, then launches into his speech in all seriousness, insisting that he will change his mind on nothing and that the rest of us just do not understand what is really going on.

If, on the other hand, his wisdom and agenda are questioned by the world, but especially by the many enemies he has made, the power available to him, and his personal ego and sense of his manliness as a world leader take over, and his VALUES become values on a much smaller scale. And that is what they have done. A little prevarication here and there becomes OK.

The plan to bring democracy to the Middle East, and presumably eventually the rest of the world, must go through. Although there has been very little mention of it, democratization undoubtedly is only the first step, to be followed by Christian conversion. Evangelists are already working there.

To keep his own record clean, Bush has taken no responsibility for the war in the Middle East, because according to him that was all caused by the terrorists and he is waging war (or considering it) in ever-increasing areas of the world to keep us safe at home. On the other hand, he is happy to take credit for the period during which we have not been attacked. It is hard to prove a negative, but nothing might have been planned during this time by the terrorists, which is hardly to his credit, considering the ports, airports, etc. which are still very vulnerable. (If we are attacked again, will he take the blame?)

To be on the safe side, he has deemed it wise to keep America and the world in a state of constant fear by saying that there will be future attacks, but we don’t know when or where. And he tops that off by saying that will be the responsibility of the presidentS who follow him (if, as I have said before, he doesn’t decide not to relinquish power when his term is up).

From a Harvard Classmate

THE 23rd QUALM

Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want.
He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests.
He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness.
He restoreth my fears.
He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war, I will find no exit, for thou art in office.
Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me.
Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion.
Thou anointest my head with foreign oil.
My health insurance runneth out.
Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term.
And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.

Mark Twain's War Prayer

O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle--be Thou near them! With them--in spirit--we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe.

O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it--for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

[Outraged by American military intervention in the Philippines, Mark Twain wrote this and sent it to Harper's Bazaar. This women's magazine rejected it for being too radical, and it wasn't published until after Mark Twain's death, when World War I made it even more timely. It appeared in Harper's Monthly, November 1916.]

Have Ballot Box: Will Steal Elections

By Robert F. Kennedy:

The debacle of the 2000 presidential election made it all too apparent to most Americans that our electoral system is broken. And private-sector entrepreneurs were quick to offer a fix: Touch-screen voting machines, promised the industry and its lobbyists, would make voting as easy and reliable as withdrawing cash from an ATM. Congress, always ready with funds for needy industries, swiftly authorized $3.9 billion to upgrade the nation's election systems - with much of the money devoted to installing electronic voting machines in each of America's 180,000 precincts.

But as midterm elections approach this November, electronic voting machines are making things worse instead of better. Studies have demonstrated that hackers can easily rig the technology to fix an election - and across the country this year, faulty equipment and lax security have repeatedly undermined election primaries.

Read the rest of Will The Next Election Be Hacked? in the Current issue of Rolling Stone!

How Stuff Used to Be Settled

True Story

Several centuries ago, the Pope decreed that all the Jews had to convert or leave Italy. There was a huge outcry from the Jewish community, so the Pope offered a deal. He would have a religious debate with the leader of the Jewish community. If the Jews won, they could stay in Italy, if the Pope won, they would have to leave.

The Jewish people met and picked an aged, but wise Rabbi Moishe to represent them in the debate. However, as Moishe spoke no Italian, and the Pope spoke no Yiddish, they all agreed that it would be a "silent" debate.

On the chosen day, the Pope and Rabbi Moishe sat opposite each other for a full minute before the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers.

Rabbi Moishe looked back and raised one finger.

Next, the Pope waved his finger around his head.

Rabbi Moishe pointed to the ground where he sat.

The Pope then brought out a communion wafer and a chalice of wine.

Rabbi Moishe pulled out an apple.

With that, the Pope stood up and declared that he was beaten, that Rabbi Moishe was too clever, and that the Jews could stay.

Later, the Cardinals met with the Pope, asking what had happened. The Pope said, "First, I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there is still only one God common to both our beliefs. Then, I waved my finger to show him that God was all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground to show that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us of all our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of the original sin. He had me beaten and I could not continue."

Meanwhile the Jewish community was gathered around Rabbi Moishe "How did you win the debate?" they asked.

"I haven't a clue," said Moishe. "First he said to me that we had three days to get out of Italy, so I gave him the finger. Then he tells me that the whole country would be cleared of Jews and I said to him, we're staying right here."

"And then what?" asked a woman.

"Who knows?" said Moishe, "He took out his lunch, so I took out mine."

No Balls, No Glory

As you will probably recall, GW Bush has said he makes his decisions based on thoughts that come from his gut. And Dick Cheney likes to contrast the courage of Republicans with the defeatism of Democrats. Both predict that if we withdrew it would only encourage "the terrorists", so we continue to terrorize the Middle East. It has only recently occurred to them that diplomacy and listening to "the other" might be a good idea, but as a tactic rather than as an intellectual theory. It is really odd that they continue to emphasize that it is "the terrorists" who like to kill innocent people, especially children. We are far ahead of them on that score, especially when you consider the millions of lives (on both sides) which will never come to be because of our aggression. And how do they know that our withdrawal would never work? We've never tried it. That would involve confessing to one of the most egregious crimes against humanity in history, especially because of its total futility. As we used to say in the old days on the ranch, neither one of them has the balls to give it a try.

United Nations Debate?

Oh, the horror! the horror!


Admittedly, I didn't hear all of the speeches, but I heard enough to get the drift.

How was the tone of what Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez said at the UN any different from the tone of what Bush said, except that it was in foreign languages?

Comment?

Suggestions to the Ford Motor Company

Free of charge!

Now that you are down in the dumps, this is a good time to completely rethink your whole philosophy about making cars. It was your forbear who started us down this long and bumpy road. I wonder what he would say if he were here to see the worldwide results.

Let’s start with the easy part. What is your very first objective? If it’s just to make money, there’s not much I can do for you, so we could end it right here.

Second chance: It is the automobile which has done the most harm to the earth, so why not start thinking about how you can ameliorate that situation. Do you go to church? Do you have values? Do you worry about the future for everybody and everything on the planet?

OK!! I have some suggestions which might help the earth and its inhabitants, and pay off for you in the bargain. Let’s start thinking about the kind of people you want as customers in the future and what kind of cars you should make for them.

Let’s get daring. Let’s decide that you want to care more for the environment than you do for selling cars to people who are obsessed with themselves. How about some requirements?

• Well-made and sturdy. I’ll go for that.
• Comfortable. That’s important.
• Energy efficient, especially hybrids or even better. Now we’re cooking.
• Large, super-sized cars. Let somebody else go down that road.
• Luxurious, as was mentioned by one of your spokesmen just last week. Not my kind of people. Let’s get serious.
• How about taking requirements 1 through 3 and building from there? Let the world know you are thinking in a different direction with a new-world last-chance philosophy?
• And finally, appearance and names. Smallish, but adequate, that speak to people about the world we need to live in. As for names, you should look for those which reflect your new outlook, which people look at and say cute, kinky, far-out, interesting, different, adorable, etc, etc., etc. – choose your own.
• Afforable. Do the best you can with that. Let the public know you’re thinking more of their needs than of your own.

Let the people who want luxury and/or huge cars know you’re not interested anymore. If you concentrate on new values and customers you’ve never seen before, you might find a whole new market that you didn’t know was out there.

No charge. Good luck. It’s sure worth a try.

Iraq Statistics

On Monday, 9-11, Vigilante posted his views On the Fifth Anniversary of 9/ll. He included comparative statistics of the dead and injured of 9/ll caused by Osama Bin Laden, as compared with those of American forces caused by George W. Bush's war in Iraq. An excellent view of the war and its consequences.

This brings to mind several things that have bothered me for some time. For one thing, one of the boasts of which GWBush is proudest, and oddly enough, brings feelings of peace and security to some Americans, is that "we are fighting the terrorists over there so that we won't have to fight them here." Doesn't it bother anyone else that we have gone into a country which has not attacked us and caused the deaths of tens of thousands of its people so that we can be secure here? Isn't it a strange sort of immoral thinking on GW's part, and doesn't it make craven cowards out of those of us who agree and are just as happy to hide behind the bodies of dead Iraqis, as well as behind those of our own soldiers?

A second thing that really bothers me is that we seldom see any statistics of innocent Iraqis killed or wounded. It is over for those who are dead, but what kind of care do you suppose the wounded are receiving, and under what circumstances When you see or read of the grievous wounds that so many of our forces have received and you realize that they will never be whole human beings again, whether physically or mentally, even with the best of care, what kind of shape do you think the Iraqis in similar circumstances are in?

And you can even wonder about the "terrorists", the "insurgents", or any other name you want to give to the "enemy". It is also over for those who are dead, but not for those who are grievously wounded. Does anyone care?

We are constantly being told by GW and his group what motivates the "terrorists" and why they hate us so, but I now hate the country I live in and the people who made it the way it is, and it has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden.

And I'd like to leave you with this question, how many mass graves do you suppose we will leave in Iraq? I know that was of great import in GW's decision to save the people there for freedom and democracy.

T for Two

In case you think that the only "T" word in the Republican vocabulary is "Terrorists", I have another for you, and that is "Taxes", and it is already being trotted out to replace Terrorists, especially next month as the new attack upon this great country of democracy, religious piety, and generosity.

Americans are really chumps for making and/or saving money, even at someone else's expense. Morality and common purpose do not really figure into the financial equation. As I recall, it was Ronald Reagan who really started the ball rolling on feeling put-upon at being required to pay taxes, especially for those services which you do not need (such as good schools if you are old or childless) or the accoutrements of modern life (such as highway upkeep, if you don't drive very often). And George W. Bush is out-mastering the master with his tax breaks for the very rich.

As for the poor, if they cannot afford to pay taxes, they don't deserve any of the services. It's their fault if they are uneducated and too lazy to work. "I made my money, so why should I have to help you?" ( Many of those in the middle class, as well as most of those in the upper class, have never made a cent themselves, and they live off the income from inheritance, as do I.)

Gambling is one of the most morally pernicious of all sins, yet somehow you feel that you are doing a civic good deed if your way of paying taxes is to buy what you hope is a winning lottery ticket.

If these approaches don't work, blame your reluctance to pay taxes on the crooks in government or their minions.

Somehow, we have got to start being, not only willing, but glad to pay taxes as our way of contributing to the common good, to accomplish those things together which we cannot do alone.

Just Compensation

Love him or loathe him, he nailed this one right on the head..........

Rush Limbaugh:

I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million.

If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable.

Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.

Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their families know the dangers.

We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.

You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent housing. Make sense?

However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month.

I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting.

When do we finally do something about this?

If this doesn't seem fair to you, it is time to forward this to as many people as you can.

How many people CAN YOU send this to?

Bush Gives Pombo "The Squeeze"

A Message from Jerry McNerney

In my inbox this afternoon was one of the best political messages I've ever received. If you are not aware of the importance of the McNerney vs. Pombo race in CA Congressional District # 11, please read it carefully. Even if you are aware of what's at stake in this race, please read it carefully.

Jerry McNerney is a decent, honorable human being who is not a professional politician (thank god) but who holds solid, progressive positions on the important issues. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and the rest of the Progressive Caucus are strongly behind him, Republican challenger Pete McCloskey is campaigning for him, he's has tremendous grassroots support, and I believe he will trounce Pombo whatever the Democratic Party establishment--in its infinite wisdom--decides to do or not do. Go to his web site (www.jerrymcnerney.org) and volunteer your time (the district isn't far) or contribute. Because the Democratic honchos are slow to get it and time's a-wasting, Jerry needs the support of every one of us.


Here's Jerry:

If you watch the Sopranos, you've probably seen an underworld boss kiss the cheek of the next victim of the family hit squad. Recently, voters in Connecticut let the world know that a kiss from the Don of the regime in Washington, D.C., can be politically just as lethal.

As the recipient of another commander-in-chief cuddle (what I like to call "The Squeeze"), no incumbent is a more worthy target of voter ire than Richard Pombo.

While promoting Bush's foreign policy disaster in Iraq, Pombo voted to cut $1.8 billion in benefits to veterans. He also cast the deciding vote in the House against funding for prosthetics for wounded veterans -- including soldiers coming home from Iraq who have lost limbs caused by roadside bombs.

Pombo has made it his 13-year mission to gut the Endangered Species Act. From his powerful perch as Chair of the House Resources, Pombo pushes legislation to line our coasts with oil rigs and lease our nation's parks to the highest bidder. As gas prices and oil company profits simultaneously skyrocket, Pombo abuses his power over the purse to provide massive subsidies to his Big Oil buddies. The Palm Beach Post calls Pombo an "eco-thug" and Mother Jones has named him the #1 enemy of the world's oceans.

While Pombo's disregard for our veterans and his record on the environment are deplorable, Pombo is also under fire for corruption. Pombo's ethical transgressions include ties to Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, paying his wife and brother more than $350,000 in campaign "consulting fees," and taking a family vacation in an RV on the taxpayers' dime. As a result, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a non-partisan watchdog group, recently filed a multiple-count ethics complaint against Pombo to a House committee and gave Pombo the ignominious honor of being named one of the 13 most corrupt members of Congress

I'm Jerry McNerney and I'm running for Congress because the people of California's 11th Congressional District deserve a better choice and a chance to put an end to Pombo's politics. I believe we can restore integrity, honesty, and ethics to the people's house. This is why I've gained the endorsement of former Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey, who garnered an impressive 32 percent of the vote against Pombo in this year's June primary (as well as support from Republican Tom Benigno, who received 6 percent of the vote). Like many patriotic Republicans in my district, Pete McCloskey is prioritizing the needs of his country over his own party.

I'm not a politician. I've spent my career developing wind energy technology. Like many Americans, my concern for the direction of our country has deepened over the last six years, with the tipping point coming in 2004 when I received a life-changing call from my son Michael. He called from his Air Force post to tell me his primary absentee ballot did not list a Democrat running against Pombo. He told me that he was going to write in my name and then asked me to run. Michael said he was doing his duty and it was time for me to do mine. I decided, that if no one else was willing to stand up against Pombo to fight for the future of America, then I would take up the challenge.

To the surprise of many pundits and power-brokers, I captured more votes in the general election than any other opponent Richard Pombo had ever faced. I did that, and won a competitive contested primary in June, by telling people the truth: that we can't drill our way to energy independence, that those who have served our country deserve our steadfast support, and that we owe our citizens more than the culture of corruption and greed that has gripped our nation's capital.

By speaking out on these vital issues and holding Richard Pombo accountable, I can win this election and help the Democrats take back Congress. In fact, an independent poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research in May showed me leading Pombo 46 to 42 percent.

I am in a strong position to defeat Pombo because the people of my district and the country are sick and tired of the status quo and want real change. We want a rational foreign policy that recognizes that blindly "staying the course" will not strengthen our national security. We want real action to reverse the climate crisis that is already engulfing us. We want fiscal responsibility instead of an economic policy that allows foreign countries to hold our nation's financial future hostage.

We simply can't afford two more years of one-party rule by extreme right-wing ideologues, and Americans know it. Starting with this seat, and with the support of Republicans like Pete McCloskey and Tom Benigno, we will take back the House of Representatives and change the course of our country to a more hopeful future.

Bush's Legacy . . .

... does not include cleaning up his own mess.

Have you noticed that G.W.Bush, our beloved president, the one whose most important job is to keep us safe, the one who will accept nothing from the evildoers short of complete and total victory, is beginning to go slightly offcourse in his recent speeches?

Starting just a few weeks ago, he subtly mentioned in one of his speeches that the War on Terror could go on for several years. This has been followed in recent speeches with references to the fact that it could go on beyond his term in office. This theme is now picking up steam, with references to future presidents (plural).

I also heard some supporting member of Congress say something about not changing horses in midstream.

So now the Great Man can relax. Either he can choose to go on to greater glory in another term, or he can turn the whole thing over to some other man or men to cope with. If he chooses the latter, he will get credit for having had the insight and courage to start this crusade for freedom and democracy, and those who follow will be stuck with the responsibility of cleaning it up.

Israel Disappoints! Again!!

If Israel had chosen to be noble, it would have announced that it was stopping any war activity immediately following the UN agreement, rather than continuing to fight up until the deadline. Israel also would have announced that it was ready to return the many combat prisoners from both Lebanon and Palestine that it holds, contemporaneously with the return of all Israeli prisoners held by them.

Following closely upon the exchange, Israel should call for peace talks, during which Israel should seek better relations with its neighbors by giving back the territories which it has seized over past years and still holds, as well as deconstruction of the walls between them. In return, Hamas and Hezbollah should be expected to reciprocate by withholding any further belligerent action against Israel. Nations, like individuals, respond to respect and goodwill with respect and goodwill. If Hezbollah should continue to send missiles into Israel under such circumstances, its credibility and world support would sink to zero.

What heroes the Israelis would have been! But unfortunately, the Israelis have chosen to follow the Bush Plan, complete victory and the humiliation of the enemy. There hasn't been much nobility in the world since Shakespeare.

Homeland Insecurity

Jon Carroll (17 July):

Ever since I have been paying taxes, some of my money has gone to programs of which I have disapproved. I figure that's part of democracy; you have to pay the bills of whoever gets elected. I don't get to earmark my tax dollars; my money and everybody else's money just gets hurled into one great big pot, and then the government takes out a lot more money than was put into the pot, proving the old American adage, "There is such a thing as a free lunch if we say there is."

So if the administration is spending insane amounts of money on weapons systems, or on unwisely invading other countries, I should work to elect an administration that will reorder the spending priorities. Right? That's the deal we signed up for.

What really causes the steam to come out of my ears is the money that gets wasted on corrupt practices. I understand that government is by nature corrupt; I had always thought it was splendid that, in a transparent democracy, corruption came with some risk. Harry Truman became famous by heading the Truman Commission, which vigorously investigated instances of fraud, waste and war profiteering during World War II. It wasn't just a public relations gesture; it made a difference.

OK, can you envision this Congress setting up a new version of the Truman Commission? Can you imagine this administration cooperating with such a commission? Ha! I laugh bitterly. You laugh bitterly too.

I do get the uneasy sense that, within five hours of the horrific events of Sept. 11, 2001, more than a few people said, "I know it may be too soon to be talking about this, but I can see a real opportunity here." So while some people were digging out, other people were creating scenarios, generating cash-flow charts and identifying opportunities for cost overruns. Organizations like Halliburton obviously had the inside track, but if you acted swiftly and spread money around, you too could be part of America's latest profit center, unwinnable wars in not one but two desert nations.

Young men are dying while old men are getting rich. 'Twas always thus, but was it always this much thus?

It wasn't just the White House; Congress saw Sept. 11 as an opportunity too. The Department of Homeland Security was a blinking neon sign -- Use Me! Use Me! -- money for your home district, all in the name of keeping our country strong and free. Everyone was thinking all terrorists all the time, which apparently meant a lot of large machines in airport waiting rooms, but then along came nature's own terrorist, Hurricane Katrina, and it turned out that the Department of Homeland Security was a shell corporation designed essentially to launder money.

Ah, but surely the failures during Katrina brought shame to relevant organizations and caused them to mend their ways. Well, no. Last week, the inspector general released a report saying that according to the National Asset Database -- which was a list you definitely wanted to be on -- there were more potential terrorist targets in Indiana than in California.

And oh, those targets, and not only in Indiana, either. The Apple and Pork Festival in Clinton, Ill. -- that made the list. The Sweetwater Flea Market in Knoxville, Tenn. -- also a location of concern. There was a petting zoo, an ice cream parlor, a tackle shop, a check-cashing store and the exquisitely mysterious "Beach at End of a Street."

Understand: This is an official government list, used to determine where resources should be allotted, and no one noticed that "beach at end of a street" was perhaps a little vague for a national emergency. "Sergeant, I want you to get your men down to the beach at the end of a street." "Is that A Street, sir?" "No, Sergeant, not A Street -- a street."

Why write comedy anymore? The amateurs have taken over.

All of these "assets" remind me of the earmarks that congresshumans stick into spending bills at the last minute. It's an ancient tradition, but it does seem that it might be suspended in time of war. (Either that, or we could suspend the war -- I'd go for that.) If we need more soldiers in Iraq to protect the ones we've got there already and the civilians who actually believed what our government told them, then I could sure do without my on-ramp or bridge repair or Twine Museum. I think most citizens could, if they were asked.

But they're not asked, except for money, and the machine rolls on, and even the leaders are now having trouble remembering what its ostensible purpose is.

Sept. 11 Panel Considered Pentagon Probe

Authors, panel’s chairmen, offer behind-the-scenes look at terror response.

Finally, all sorts of stuff is starting to erupt from this pustule of an administration. Please send this to any of your friends or relatives that still believe that 9-11 and Iraq were connected and start thinking about WHY our fighters never made it to Ground Zero when they can fly at warp speed, why no one noticed 4 jets going off course, etc. These guys are not commie conspiracy nuts. I hope I live to see bush, cheney, rove, rumsfeld and the other murderers in jail in my lifetime. I hope I never see a bush/cheney bumper sticker on anyone's car. God, god, god. OH, and the media. Where were they in all of this? Good job all around. Thank God for the real patriots in all of this, the ones who dared to question their country. That is what democracy is all about and maybe we will survive this after all.

New Thoughts on Illegal Immigration

Why are we getting so hysterical about people crossing our border from Mexico, at risk of death by starvation and/or fatal dehydration? To my knowledge, none have been found so far to be carrying nuclear weapons.

Some may be carrying drugs, but they are paying an awful physical price for the journey. Besides, the market for drugs in this country evidently makes the price worth it. Whose fault is that?

A great deal of crime is said to come with the illegal immigrants. Hey, we have plenty of that in this country already, physical, social, and corporate.

The physical act of crossing the border may be illegal, but it is hardly criminal or an act of war.

Rumination on a Different Direction

It has suddenly crossed my mind that each nation in this fractious world should withdraw within its own boundaries and learn to live on what’s left of its own resources with whatever time is left before the complete collapse of civilization.

For the poorer countries it should be relatively easy because their lives are more engrossed with survival than with frills. They are accustomed to expecting less and dying sooner. But the resources of their own country would then at least belong to them.

It will be more difficult for the wealthy countries, because so many of the resources of other countries, including cheap labor, are what supply our creature comforts. This will be especially hard for the people of the United States who have been encouraged by our capitalist society to believe in the ethic of personal frolic and consumption, and to fear the personal shame of not supporting our country if we do not make the mall and world travel the cornerstone of our days.

Free trade does not appear to benefit anyone to any particular extent except the corporations and the very rich. The rest of us may benefit to some extent, but at the expense of the people who are employed by our corporations in foreign lands for meager pay, similar jobs that are lost to American workers, and the immigrants here, both legal and illegal, who can’t make a living wage in this country either.

Tribalism exists throughout the world. There is a great deal of tribalism within the United States: ­economic, political, financial, “social”, racial, and especially religious. When it becomes time for history (if there is anyone here to record it), the Great Divider will be remembered best for his faith-based fragmentation of his country and this world.

But it is not entirely his fault. Unfortunately, the Great American Dream of a country that said, after we got rid of the Indians, “Come one, come all, and we will live forever in peace and harmony” has become the world’s nightmare, aggravated by the increasing closeness in which we live.

God and Nature

The awareness of global warming is beginning to grow all over the planet. Whether you are a believer in God or a believer in Nature, what is happening is being felt by all of us. Many who believe in God believe the End Days are upon us. Many who do not believe in God agree that that might be possible, but from a different point of view.

God and Nature are essentially one and the same. For those who believe fervently in God, mankind is being punished for its sins of ignorance, greed, and venality. For those who believe in Nature, mankind is being given a warning. Those who believe in God react by feeling helpless and praying for his help. Those who believe in Nature realize we are thinking creatures and we had better start trying to get ourselves out of the hole we have dug.

For one thing, there are just way too many of us on this earth for the room and resources it has provided. Many of those who believe in God will have to come to realize that we just cannot continue to breed ourselves into oblivion. Saying that every life is precious is a fine idea, but a life that is born into poverty, disease, and starvation can hardly be God's choice. Mankind is responsible for that and had better start taking responsibility.

Many natural disasters, like earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes, are not really caused by mankind, but mankind can often ameliorate them by living differently. Hurricanes and other storms originating in the atmosphere are telling those who believe in Nature that how we live individually is beginning to affect mankind globally. The fumes that America in particular sends into the atmosphere are beginning to affect not only us, but the entire planet.

Many of those who believe in Nature are working hard to climb back out of the hole we have dug. On the other had, many of those who believe in Nature are also into greed and venality. For example, if producing pesticides and other chemicals which do more harm than good are faster and pay well and people want them, go for it.

Unlimited prosperity and the pursuit of fun and creature comforts beyond those which are necessary are warnings to us of increasing personal greed, made even worse in a capitalist society, which can only exist if it is made up of those who have more and those who have less.

If we, especially in this country, do not accept God's punishment and /or Nature's warning and begin individually to lower our standard of living, it will indeed be due to our individual ignorance, greed, and venality, and can only eventually lead to the End Days. It is our fault, and we can do something about it. What a shame if we don't!