Coalition For a Democratic America

LIVES AND FAMILIES DESTROYED: Part1

2008-04-01T18:34:00.001-07:00

r
LIVES AND FAMILIES DESTROYED
BY Abe, Kelli, PraetorOne, and Kyle

PART I: GETTING BACK IN THE SADDLE AGAIN WHEN YOU SHOULDN'T

In the early 1800s they called it "exhaustion." In World War I they called it "Soldiers Heart," "the Effort Syndrome," and finally "Shell Shock." In World War II it was called "Combat Fatigue," only to undergo yet another transformation in 1952, when the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) referred to it as "Stress Response Syndrome" caused by "gross stress reaction." During the Vietnam conflict, in 1968, it was melded into a section about situational disorders. And, as an interesting side note, it should be stated that those Vietnam Veterans who suffered from "Stress Response Syndrome" actually suffered from a preexisting condition if that condition lasted longer than six months--a slick way to avoid paying Veterans benefits. It wasn't until the 1980s that the third edition of the DSM (DSM III) used the current term of identification, and in 1994 the DSM IV categorized it as new type of stress disorder, still listed under the heading of Anxiety Disorders.

We are of course talking about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a condition which the overstretched military currently and conveniently believes can be cured by taking traumatized Iraq veterans and pushing them back into combat situations. Translated into modern English, Military psychiatrists seem to have confused PTSD with phobic reactions and are foolishly encouraging young veterans to get back in the proverbial saddle again.

Imagine if you will, that you have eaten a bad hotdog and have become violently ill. Imagine further, that you go to your doctor and that your doctor has told you to eat another hot dog. Well, that's what is happening in Iraq as Military Doctors are using traumatized soldiers as psychological guinea pigs in a thinly disguised effort to maintain troop levels, and quite possibly to prevent Iraq War Veterans from cashing in on deserved benefits here at home. In either event this so called treatment flies in the face of morality and rational thinking and it certainly makes a mockery out of the Hippocratic Oath.

To understand how foolish this controversial treatment really is we might want to take a look at the highly varied symptoms of the beast that we refer to as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

*intrusive memories about the traumatic event or events

*bad dreams about the traumatic event

*flashbacks or a sense of reliving the event

*feelings of intense distress when reminded of the trauma

*physiological symptoms such as a pounding heart, rapid breathing, nausea, muscle tension, and profuse sweating

*The patient may feel terrified and disorientated, trying to avoid feelings or conversations which might remind him of the event. There may be a loss of memory regarding important parts of the traumatic event and there may be a loss of interest in activities and in life in general. The patient may feel detached or estranged from other people or may feel emotionally numb towards people, including loved ones.

*The patient may feel increased arousal and anxiety, experiencing sleep difficulties, outbursts of anger, difficulty concentrating, hyper-vigilance (being constantly on guard). The patient may be jumpy and experience an exaggerated startle response.

Over time the patient may develop depression, substance abuse in an attempt to self-medicate, depression. Patients often avoid treatment because they are afraid others will be judgmental. And in the military this is not a small concern, because the culture of silence surrounding mental disorders can only be described as extreme, Especially when one considers the fact that there are established methods of treatment.

Early treatment, before the symptoms worsen, is important. The effects on friends and families can be devastating to say the least, and one of the areas on which treatment will focus is on the improvement of family life. One needs to remember that individuals and families alike will suffer as the patient deteriorates. This is not to blame the patient, but the disorder itself. Unless someone has had some sort of contact with this disorder one really can't understand the dynamics involved, the damage that it can do. Moreover, PTSD can cause physical conditions to deteriorate as physiological symptoms grow more intense: heart conditions, ulcers, ad infinitum.

Patients and loved ones need to understand that PTSD is not weakness nor a lapse in morality. Actually it is a sign that the individual is trying, albeit rather desperately, to cope with the situation, with the original trauma.

Treatment is designed to help the victim deal with the trauma as opposed to avoiding it. Thoughts and feelings pertaining to the trauma are explored; the victim is encouraged to work through the feelings of guilt, self-blame, and mistrust which surround the trauma and the ensuing PTSD. Intrusive memories are dealt with, the patient being taught how to better control those memories. At the same time family issues are discussed and dealt with.

One therapy is Exposure Therapy in which the patient is gradually exposed to the thoughts and situations which trigger memories of the original traumatic event. Eventually the patient is encouraged to face situations which may resemble (the opportune word being resemble) the original traumatic event. Cognitive Restructuring is another means of therapy in which the patient is encouraged to recognize and identify the disturbing thought patterns surrounding the
original trauma. In this form of therapy the patient is taught to differentiate between distorted and irrational perceptions and more balanced, rational perceptions.

And those are only two out of many accepted therapies. But now look out. Here come George W. Bush and the Bush Military and they have a whole new take on the situation. Thanks in part to a handful of renegades within the mental health care profession--most of which are tied to the United States military--we have now reached the point where where Military psychiatrists want to take traumatized soldiers and push them back into the situation which caused the trauma in the first place. As we stated above this flies in the face of both, basic morality and the Hippocratic Oath. In the standard, accepted therapies that we discussed above the object is to prevent future harm, there is only a minimal danger of additional mental or physical harm. That cannot be said about taking a traumatized soldier and sending him back into combat. There is desensitization and then there is the kind of congenital imbecility which is being promoted by that handful of renegade psychiatrists et al as they place more lives and limbs in danger.

So why would the United States military devise such a foolish method of treatment. First and foremost we suspect that it has more to do with a desperate need for troops than it does with legitimate medical and psychological needs. It is no secret that the United States Military is already spread too thin and that it can't afford to lose many more soldiers. Ergo, it has devised a way to keep troops on the battlefield, mental health be damned.

Secondly, we also suspect a financial motivation. In 2005 the Republican dominated government in Washington began to question the legitimacy of disability claims based on PTSD.
In 2004, 215,871 vets received PTSD benefit payments at a cost of $4.3 billion. In 1999 the figure stood at $1.17 billion, a jump in five years of more than 150 percent and that included very few of the veterans, the troops, who were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the increase had come from Vietnam veterans who wanted to free themselves of the devastating effects of PTSD. True to form the Republicans decided that it might be a good time to start cutting benefits based on PTSD claims. The result was a messy political argument in which the Republicans claimed that some veterans were faking their symptoms just to maintain their benefits. To substantiate this Loony Tunes argument, the Republicans claimed that extending benefits to Vietnam Era vets for such a long period of time would somehow tell Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan that PTSD was a hopeless disorder that would continue without end: which, when you think about it is a little like saying someone would want to drink a vial of poison and risk his or her life just so they can enjoy the trip to and stay in the hospital. It does happen from time to time--you might find the rare person who would risk life and limb for the sheer joy of receiving medical treatment-- but such cases are rare and we suspect that those cases in which a rare individual would fake PTSD for benefits are also very, VERY rare. Oh, they like the trappings of war. They enjoy the impassioned political speeches, the nationalism, the flag waving and cheers which initially get them elected as they promote whatever intervention they believe will buy them political points, but when it comes to actually helping the kids who are going to do the actual suffering, bleeding, and dying, our GOP (Greedy Old Prigs) the upper class government officials show an almost gleeful contempt for the lower and lower middle class kids who sign up to do the GOP's dirty work. In addition we doubt if the Republican bean counters have ever given two whoops in hell about any vet once he or she had put in his or her required time. And today we can't even say that--not in a day of extended tours and little or no rest for weary, exhausted troops. Indeed, today the Republicans, George W. Bush and Vice President Cheney in particular, see troops as little more than disposable toy soldiers. They would just as soon see them come home in body bags than pay them for disabilities sustained while they were fighting in their ill-conceived war of choice. Not that Bush is especially interested in attending funerals, nor in allowing the public to see flag-draped coffins, much less body bags. To make the situation even worse the press has served as a pro-Bush cheering section in this regard. We've all see it. The stereotypical "news story" (think propaganda) about the severely wounded veteran who is eager to get back to Iraq. This, of course serves less as legitimate news (at the very best it's a feel good story) and more as propaganda to encourage wounded veterans to get back into action. The press COULD show more news stories about veterans who have been successfully treated and who have adjusted very well without putting their lives in jeopardy all over again, but they don't do that. The media are more interested in promoting the image of the strong-willed Marine or Soldier who goes back into the military with a prosthetic leg or arm. Indeed, a special on ABC a few years ago went so far as to feature soldiers with PTSD who allowed themselves to be manipulated by these semi-professional psychiatrists (read quacks) into going back into combat. Naturally, the ones who didn't were portrayed as weak and self-destructive. The message could not have been more devastating to PTSD sufferers who may already felt weak, guilty, and depressed because of their symptoms. And if the truth is to be told, stories such as these only reinforce the damaging mythology that has surrounded all types of mental illness in the past. Why do the words archaic and hackneyed come to mind?

But we seem to have digressed. In closing we shall only add that the pseudo-scientific approach to therapy which takes traumatized troops and places them back in jeopardy is just another manifestation of the fact that the Bush Administration didn't plan this war properly from the get go. Instead of concentrating on the war against terror the Bush Administration dropped the ball and attacked Iraq, distracting from a more crucial and relevant effort in Afghanistan. Obsessed over Iraq and the man who "threatened to kill (his) daddy," Bush assumed that the United States could defeat any enemy on the battlefield. It went in with an insufficient number of troops to fight a war which didn't have to be fought in the first place and ever since it has been recycling combat weary troops, knowing full well that it blew it but remaining too cocksure and too politically opportunistic to admit the same to the public. So now the Administration has ruined the military, spread it so thin that it can't afford to lose a single man or woman. Is it any wonder that we're sending traumatized soldiers back into battle?

SOURCE MATERIAL:

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)
SYMPTOMS TYPES AND TREATMENT
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/post_traumatic_stress_disorder_symptoms_treatment.htm

WASHINGTON TIMES Online Edition
A POLITICAL DEBATE ON STRESS DISORDER
By Shankar Vedantam
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600792.html
27 December, 2005

--
Noli nothis permittere te terere
Jolan Tru
Brandon Alexander Geraghty-MacKenzie

FAMILIES ANDLIVES DESTROYED, Part 2

2008-04-01T18:21:00.001-07:00

FAMILIES AND LIVES DESTROYED
BY DoctorWho, Shakti, and Rachel

PART 2, Screwing Wounded Vets at Home and in War

When former Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld issued his asinine comment about how we go to war with the army we have not the army we want, I thought to myself: "How unfortunate that we went to war with the President, Vice President, and Secretary of War that we have and not the one we legally elected."

No matter how you look at it, this Administration has been a disaster for wounded veterans. On the one hand they sent the troops into a war lacking weapons, armored vehicles, and body armor, a fact which undoubtedly increased the number of dead troops which we never saw come home in flag-draped coffins. On the other hand, when we DID properly arm the troops, we all but guaranteed an increase in the number of severely injured veterans. Body armor, surgical techniques, new medicines, and improvements in transportation have translated into an increase in the number of severely wounded troops. Today, as a result of the innovations listed above, only 6 percent of all veterans die of their wounds. That's up from 17 percent in Vietnam and from 23 percent in World War II. That isn't to suggest that we want more dead troops. Far from it. When you consider the fact that we now have nearly 4,000 dead and 29,320 wounded with outside estimates ranging from 23,000 to as many as 100,000 wounded, one really has to wonder what the Administration was thinking about (or for that matter,what it was thinking WITH) when it decided to invade Iraq in the first place. Contrary to Administration prevarications, we were attacked on 911 by terrorists from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, not Iraq. But I'm not here to argue about motives--at least not yet. No, for the time being I'm here to insist that at no point did the Bush Administration consider the possibility that under supplying some troops while properly arming others would cause tragedy at both ends of the spectrum.

Those who have survived their injuries have been plagued with injuries that only a Demon from Hell could imagine. Many, TOO many, suffer from polytrauma, combinations of injuries which include: amputations, multiple amputations, nerve damage, multiple bone fractures, loss of hearing, loss of vision, infections, unhealed body wounds, third degree burns, major brain damage, spinal cord injuries, and of course, emotional and behavior problems (think Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, dissociative disorders, thoughts about suicide, etc.)

As if that isn't bad enough many wounded vets must be taught how to walk, talk, speak, or even swallow again and that comes with some rather hefty medical expenses: thousands upon thousands of dollars per year combined with ongoing treatment and rehabilitation, often for the rest of their lives. To its credit, as a part of it's 2007 proposal, the Administration offered $80.6 billion with $34.3 billion set aside for Veterans' health care. That sounds good on the surface, but to pay for it the Administration also proposed cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Energy Assistance, and other programs for the poor. At no time did this Administration ask that everybody share in the pain. But it DID do its very best to protect tax cuts for the hyper rich while it waged a parallel war on poverty by waging a relentless war on the poor. Now consider the fact that so many of these wounded troops come from lower and lower middle class backgrounds and that the only reason many of them signed up in the first place was to obtain career and educational opportunities that they otherwise couldn't have afforded and you realize just how duplicitous the Bush Administration truly is.

Of course you just have to give Bush and his depraved band of war-mongers credit. When they decide to persecute the poor they don't go half way. They are equal opportunity persecutors. They go after anyone who has trouble making ends meet: Black, White, Hispanic, make, female, soldier or civilian. It's bred in their blue blood. They genuinely believe that poor people deserve to be poor. And the fact that so many of the troops are drawn from the ranks of the poor, from the ranks of racial minorities, may well explain part of the contempt that George W. Bush, Cheney, and their ilk show towards this particular generation of troops. In so many ways this is a sociopathic version of the contempt that Barbara Bush revealed towards Katrina survivors. Babs believed that hurricane refugees were better off in a public stadium than they were in their homes. George W. Bush seems to believe that young, twenty-some-year-olds will be better off in a body bag or in a nice sterile institution that they are in the warm comforts of a home and a family relationship.

In addition the Republicans also found new and innovative ways to financially screw wounded veterans. Never mind the Republican-led effort to cut off benefits from veterans who were receiving those benefits based on claims of Post-Taumatic Stress Disorder Let's talk about the now infamous Enlistment Bonus scandal which operated like this: Imagine, if you will that you are a young veteran who was wounded in Iraq, who came home seriously injured with an honorable discharge expecting an Enlistment Bonus for your time served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Then imagine that you received your bonus, only to receive a subsequent mailing in which the Republican-dominated Defense Department demands that you return the money because you had not served your full amount of time on duty. This, shockingly, is what was revealed by the Dole-Shalala Commission when it investigated the Defense Department's policy which quite literally prohibited payment bonuses unless entire commitments were fulfilled. It didn't matter if the soldier in question had been forced into an early discharge. The Bush Defense Department wanted its pound of flesh no matter how or why the wounded veteran had been forced into an early discharge. In fact, the situation became so bad that in 2007 the Bush Defense Department was thoroughly humiliated and the House of Representatives, proposed the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act which prohibited the Defense Department from denying enlistment bonuses to wounded vets, even if they hadn't served their full amount of time on duty. Moreover the bill would have required that bonuses be paid in full within a period of thirty days. For a complete text of the bill please go to:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3793

So who's to blame? Certainly the Administration--people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condy Rice, Colin Powell, and others--must wash some of the blood from their hands. Can you imagine a network of homicidal maniacs were so obtuse as to invade the wrong country without properly arming an insufficient number of troops? Can you comprehend a conspiracy of oil-hungry war-mongers who were so stupid that they didn't realize that technological advances in both medicine and warfare would result in severely wounded veterans such as we have never seen in the history of mass slaughter? By this stage I think it's a given that many of us can.

But there's another group which needs to wipe the blood from its hands as well. I am talking about military recruiters who have been given carte blanche by the damnable No Child Left Behind Act. Not only are these propaganda masters allowed to spread their phony PR in American High Schools; they also receive free access to student records. With information in hand they are able to fix their arguments around the individual student,playing on fears, dreams, and personal backgrounds like psychological chess masters. And that's exactly what military recruiters really are: psychological chess masters. They'll tell an eager young man or woman anything that young man or woman wants to hear. They deal in public relations, not reality. Educational opportunities, career opportunities, honor, and valor. They'll tell any lie that a young person is prone to believe. And the part that strikes me as the most horrifying is that they know young people, young males in particular, have impressionable minds. Worse yet, they also know something that many of us have learned with maturity: recruiters know that young people don't fully understand the concept of mortality. A young person in his or her late teens and early twenties thinks that he or she is invincible, that severe injury or even death will never happen to them.

And that's a misconception that is quickly corrected when they come home wounded, or in psychological pain, or when their family relations begin to deteriorate, or when they can't find work, or when they find themselves thinking about suicide because they can't forget the horrors or war, or when...

--
Noli nothis permittere te terere
Jolan Tru
Brandon Alexander Geraghty-MacKenzie

Re: PART 3 SECTION A

2008-04-01T15:55:00.001-07:00

DESTROYED LIVES AND FAMILIES
By DoctorWho, Shakti, and PraetorOne
PART 3: HALF TRUTHS AND BROKEN PROMISES

Under normal circumstances it takes a number of a decades for a Veteran to go homeless, but in the case of veterans returning from Iraq or Afghanistan, the process by which past generations of veterans went homeless appears to be taking place at an accelerated rate. According to the National Coalition of Homeless Veterans nearly approximately 196,000 vets are homeless in any given night. And that may only be the beginning because as of 2006, 1.3 million American men and women had served at various times in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Sadly more than 400 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are now utilizing agency supported residential programs across the entire United States. Shelters, soup kitchens, and parks are regularly visited by outreach officers from the Veterans Administration and the results are chilling to say the least. Approximately 1,500 Iraq-Afghanistan veterans were determined to be at risk even though some of them still had jobs. And the news only gets worse.

The increased number of women in the armed services has also complicated he picture. Approximately 40 percent of the hundreds of female veterans have been sexually assaulted by American soldiers while they were still in the military. That may sound irrelevant until you remember that sexual abuse can be a factor in determining homelessness.

And as stated in the previous installment, technological advances in medicine, warfare, and transportation have created a situation in which soldiers who might otherwise have died are now coming home with brain injuries, PTSD, and other forms of emotional and/or psychological disorders. That is of particular importance because government programs, including the Veterans Administration tend to treat mental disorders differently than they do physical disorders. Governmental programs tend to cater to those who have physical disabilities, but if you suffer from an emotional, psychological, or behavioral problem, you will be scrutinized more carefully, forced to jump through more hoops than someone with physical disabilities. And while you are waiting the nonphysical disabilities from which you suffer may well lead you from the horrific world of self medication (think drugs and alcohol) to the nightmare of genuine addiction, another factor in homelessness. In addition it often doesn't matter if an applicant has a physical or a psychological disability because red tape and governmental bureaucracy has created a situation in which applicants often wait for as long as a year for services. You don't need to be a social worker to realize that a veteran could easily go through his or her resources during that time and find him or herself on the steets.

Taken as a whole, veterans of all ages compose approximately 11 percent of the population, but they represent 26 percent of the homeless. Moreover 44,000 to 64,000 veterans (in general) have been diagnosed as chronic cases. And to make matters even worse, the United States Army has determined that one out of three Iraq War veterans will suffer the devastating effects of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or other mental disorders. Moreover experts expect this trend to continue for years, decades, to come; and if that sounds familiar it should. The same thing happened to Vietnam veterans. In other words, those organizations which provide housing, employment and counseling are not and may never be ready for the flash flood of human misery that is about to hit as a direct result of the Bush War.

continued

Re: PART 3 SECTION B

2008-04-01T15:45:00.001-07:00

LIVES AND FAMILIES DESTROYED, Part 3 B

Of course we can hear the Social Darwinists even now: "Homeless veterans WANT to be homeless! Why should my tax dollars go to help people who WANT to live on the streets." Yup. That sounds good to us. Who wouldn't want to live on the streets during a Wisconsin winter. Nothing like 10 or 20 below zero to stimulate the old cardio-vascular system. Or a 95 degree summer day in clothing that hasn't been washed since Hector was a pup. And don't forget the meals--we hear garbage can left overs are a real treat. By the same token living in warehouses or under bridges or in old cars might be considered adequate housing in SOME deluded minds.

So let's correct that mythology right now. Granted, there are a few veterans who might be reluctant to seek help because they view a need for help as a form of weakness. You have to remember that the military tends to view psychological disorders and a need to seek help as a form of weakness, indeed, careers can be ruined if a person is deemed weak because of a psychological disorder which requires therapy. So there may be some reluctance to seek out help in the first place, but that doesn't mean that homeless vets enjoy being homeless. Virtually no one, save for the most severe cases, wants to live on the streets. As we might have expected, the myth of the happy homeless started during the Reagen Administration and it continues to this very day. Sadly it is just that, a myth, and yet the degree to which weak-minded right wingers continue to believe in that lie is nothing less than shameful.

Instead of blaming the victim we would suggest looking at more realistic explanations. We just wrote about some of them, the governmental bureaucracy and red tape which delays approval for social programs; requiring those with psychological disorders to jump through extra hoops etc. So maybe now we should look at more realistic explanations, including the governmental funding of various agencies and programs.

People assume that the Veterans Administration is of tremendous help to veterans, As we have just learned it is helpful to veterans with physical disabilities. Moreover there is no law requiring that the VA be funded at all. As a matter of fact it is so under funded that in 2006 groups as diverse as the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the Disabled American Veterans urged Congress to increase the VA budget by more than $2 million. Ideally what should happen is that Congress should pass a law mandating adequate funding for the VA, but that might actually save lives, not take or ruin them as George W. Bush and his merry band of blood thirsty imbeciles are so inclined to do.

Nor is the Department of Defense of that much help either, although it could be if it wanted to be. At the present time the Defense Department is spending more than $5 billion dollars a month to occupy a country which had nothing to do with 911. At the same time it spends a paltry $50 million to assist homeless veterans. Why so little? The answer is obvious. The State Department believes that its one and only mission is to transform civilians, regular citizens, into soldiers. Once the Veteran returns home and takes off that uniform, the DOD believes that its job is done. It sees no reason to help transform soldiers into good, productive civilians, citizens if you will. But isn't this an abdication of the DOD's basic mission? Do not healthy, productive citizens provide another kind of defense for America? Don't they contribute to her financial well being? Of course they do. Moreover one might argue that a productive, well adjusted citizenry not only provides for the defense of the country, it also make the country worth defending--facts which have apparently flown over the heads of both, the DOD and the Regime in Washington. That said it is obvious that the DOD must be pressured and shamed into helping veterans readjust to civilian life.

All too often troubled veterans come home under the false impression that society is ready to help them with their problems. They genuinely believe that there is a social network of social and veterans' programs out there to help them with medical bills and to help them find meaningful employment. And then reality sets in; and in addition to the trauma which ended their tour of duty, they must now face a new trauma--the fact that they were led to believe a bill of goods before they marched off to war.

So what can we expect if we continue to ignore veterans' issues? Nothing less than a tsunami of human misery. Broken homes, broken families, domestic abuse, drug abuse, rising suicide rates among troubled veterans, and, of course, increases in the number of homeless vets. Something has to change. We need to recognize and then act upon the fact that some veterans are going to require special care and extra attention when they get home. We need doctors and mental health care professionals who will be willing to work with these young men and women, profit be damned. We need to step on governmental agencies and social programs and demand that they cut through the red tape, insisting that they process disability claims more quickly, regardless as to whether or not the disability is of a physical nature.

In short we need to open our hearts and our pocket books and start treating our disabled and homeless vets with a little compassion, pride, and dignity. Anything less is a waste of human potential.

SOURCES

New York Times
"Surge Seen in Number of Homeless Veterans"
By Erik Eckholm; November 8, 2007
http:www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/us/08vets.html?fta=y

Military.com; Today in the Military
"Homeless Heroes"
By Paul Rieckhoff; May 4, 2006
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,96237,00.html

Alternet/War on Iraq
"Gimme Shelter"
By Rose Aguilar; February 8,
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21191/

SUGGESTED READING

The New Standard
"Iraq War Veterans Already Joining Burgeoning Homeless Population"
By Ron Chepesiuk; February 11, 2005
http:newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/1468

Noli nothis permittere te terere

Jolan Tru
Brandon Alexander Geraghty-MacKenzie

Fwd: EPILOGUE

2008-04-01T15:12:00.001-07:00

---------- Forwarded message ----------

DESTROYED LIVES AND FAMILIES
EPILOGUE
NO REAL SACRIFICE: LIES, EXPLOITATION, AND MANIPULATION

By PraetorOne

Obviously I am too young to have experienced World War II directly, but I am well read on the topic and I have forged friendships with older people who did experience that war first hand. One of the things I learned was that the American people were willing to make sacrifices in those days. As well they should have. In the summer of 1942 Adolf Hitler appeared to be at the height of his powers. German Armies had penetrated deep into Western Russia; German and Italian Armies had conquered vast areas of territory ranging from Northern Africa to Western Europe to Scandinavia. In the East, Japan had taken out the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, leaving America's Western Coast vulnerable to attack. Moreover, the Pacific Ocean and Eastern Asia were little more than a Japanese play ground. With that in mind the American people, though they may have grumbled from time to time, decided to make personal sacrifices for the war effort. The rationed everything from eggs, meat, and fat, to tires and nylons. They paid higher taxes and went without new refrigerators, wash machines, and cars to save metal for th war effort. Moreover the government levied higher taxes to pay for the war effort; and by taxes I mean taxes on everyone, rich and poor alike, not just on the middle and lower classes, but on the wealthy as well. Franklin Roosevelt went on the radio and explained why we needed to make personal sacrifices in our every day lives, and once we understood exactly how grim the situation was we got into line and did our best --albeit with a little pissing and moaning--to support the War Against Fascism.

Now flash forward to the year 2001. On 911 of that memorable year we were attacked by right wing religious religious fanatics from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, initiating what George W. Bush referred to as a War Against Terror(ism).   Presumably this war against terrorism is a Third World War, but unlike Franklin Roosevelt, George W.Bush did not call for shared sacrifice. Instead, he fought hard to keep tax cuts for the very wealthy and told us to go shopping. In effect asking us to pull out our credit cards to buy worthless junk that we don't really need while openly encouraging his "Ownership Society," which is just a fancy way of saying: "Get yourself a variable mortgage and buy yourself a home that you can't afford to pay for." That's right--George W. Bush told the lower and middle classes to buy things they didn't need or couldn't afford to keep his consumer driven economy afloat.

Translated into modern English, George W. Bush asked the American people, the lower and middle classes, to pull his economic chestnuts out of the fire by going deeper into debt. After telling us that the War Against Terror(ism) was the greatest threat this country had faced since World War II George W. Bush called for no common sacrifice and decided to fight his wars on the cheap.His contempt for the lower and middle classes must be obvious to even the most obtuse of Americans, but what is less obvious is the contempt that our Demander and Thief holds towards the troops and veterans, who, as you might know, come disproportionately from lower and lower middle class backgrounds and from the ranks of Black and Hispanic Americans. Oh that doesn't mean that George W. Bush doesn't EXPLOIT the troops when he wants to MANIPULATE public sentiment, but beyond that our Demander and Thief has no use for the troops or, for that matter, for veterans. People like "W" and his blue-blooded ilk have no use for anyone they consider below them and so many of the troops come from demographic groups which "W" et al consider below them.

They don't mind giving patriotic speeches before crowds of soldiers or flying to Iraq under heavy guard with rubber turkeys when doing so will benefit them politically; they don't mind hanging wreaths at public ceremonies when it creates a false image of "Compassionate Conservatism" (an oxymoron if ever there were one). But when is the last time George W. Bush attended a soldier's funeral? What did he and the Congressional Republicans do to address veterans needs? Virtually nothing.   And on the few occasions that they did they quite literally had to be shamed into taking action. Does anyone remember the insect and rodent infestations at Walter Reed outpatient facilities? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.   That disgusting little scandal might never have been addressed if the Powers That Be hadn't been shamed into cleaning up the facilities. And since George W. Bush is essentially incapable of guilt I suspect that he wasn't shamed at all. He was probably motivated by political needs, saving his own hide, than he was in helping wounded veterans.

For all intents and purposes the relationship (respectively speaking) between George W. Bush and the troops/wounded veterans is the same kind of relationship that we find between pedophiles and abused, prepubescent children. No, I am not saying that troops and veterans are children, but I am saying that they have been abused, that it is the same kind of user-abused relationship. As long as the child remains a child, the abuser maintains an unhealthy interest in his victim, lying, coercing, and threatening, doing whatever he can to obtain what he desires most. This, of course is classic George W. Bush. He uses the troops as props before the cameras for press conferences whenever his approval ratings fall; he evokes the bravery and patriotism of the brave young troops whenever such images serve his war-mongering purposes. But like your typical pedophile, who loses interest in his victim when that victim undergoes puberty, George W. Bush quickly loses interest when troops come home in body bags or with physiological and/or psychological injuries. It's a classic case of abuser-abused psychology and the frightening part about all of this is that George W. Bush (today), with his mediocre approval ratings and increasingly irrelevant twaddle about anything and everything, probably sees himself as the victim in all of this.

Five years ago the Bush Regime invaded a country which had nothing to do with 911. In many ways the equivalent to that barbaric act would have taken place in 1941 when, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have declared war on Bolivia. The people who crashed those airliners into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, not Iraq. Many of us still wonder why? Was George Bush trying to avenge himself because he believed Saddam had tried to kill his daddy? Was it for oil? Does it even MATTER at this stage of the game. All right, for the historical record it DOES matter, but let's look at the overall picture here. Nearly 4,000 American troops dead. Nearly 30,000 wounded.

And that doesn't even begin to account for the numbers of dead and displaced Iraqis. And through it all George W. Bush maintained that Iraq was/is a front in the War Against Terror(ism). To which one should ask the obvious question. If indeed this is the most deadly foe we have faced since the 1930s and 40s, why have we not asked the most wealthy in this society to make a sacrifice? Why does George W. Bush repeatedly compare the Islamicists to the Nazis and then refuse to give up on his budget busting tax cut for the rich? Why didn't he initiate a draft to guarantee a large enough military to do the job properly in both, Afghanistan and Iraq? The answers are political. If he asks the hyper rich to giveback some of their ill gotten gold they may punish him by cutting back on contributions to Republican campaigns. If he initiates a draft (white) middle and upper class America may well punish him by voting for the other party or by sitting out elections. In any event "W" was hardly influenced by the military situation in Iraq and he certainly wasn't motivated by "Compassionate Conservatism."   Power and a need to bully and dominate, yes, but certainly not compassion.As usual, George W. Bush had ample opportunity to tell us the truth and he didn't. Instead his motives kept changing. One day it was because Saddam Hussein was a bad man. Another day it was because Iraq had been a conspirator in 911. Another day it was because we could bring Democracy to a country which had yet to experience democracy in any way , shape, or form.   And the irony in all of it is that we still don't know his real motives, although I suspect it had more to do with oil, megalomania, and arrogance than anything else.

In closing I will only add the following. Far from being a good Christian and a "Compassionate Conservative," George W. Bush is a classic user and manipulator. And if the truth is to be told we have all suffered under his Social Darwinistic policies, especially the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. But when it is all said and done no one has been manipulated, and exploited and lied to as much as our troops and veterans have been manipulated, exploited, and lied to. Because while some people have paid dearly with heavy credit card bills; long, tiring hours at multiple jobs; and house foreclosures, others have paid with their blood, sanity, and lives.

And that is a tragedy that words cannot describe.

Noli nothis permittere te terere
Jolan Tru
Brandon Alexander Geraghty-MacKenzie

FUNDAMENTALISM DOES NOT EXIST

2008-03-03T11:18:00.000-08:00

Fundamentalism Does Not Exist:

LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE EVANGELICAL RIGHT

By Matthew 5

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love to one another."

John 13:34-35

"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. That is the first and great commandment. The second is like unto it,Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Matthew 22:35-40

For all intents and purposes Fundamentalism is a figment of the far right's imagination. The Evangelical Right routinely uses the Bible as a weapon against its opponents when it seeks to score political points, but if the truth is to be known the fact of the matter is that no one can be a fundamentalist. Oh I'll admit that the Evangelical Right and the Millenialists, and other right wing factions like to use the Bible and they routinely display an attitude that seems to say "we're so much better than everyone else because we believe in a literal interpretation of the Entire Bible (especially the bigoted, hateful, repressive, and violent portions therein). But what the far right fails to realize is that the very argument they use to promote their supposed superiority, is in fact an argument against Fundamentalism in general. The key word is the word interpretation, although I would argue simultaneously that it is also a matter of emphasis. In a book as long and and self-contradictory as The Bible, one must by necessity pick and choose those parts that one finds inspirational. Thus liberals and conservatives, while both revere (or at least claim to revere) The Bible find themselves believing and promoting very different interpretations of the holy text. But that doesn't necessarily mean that one interpretation is equal to the other. I have looked at the Evangelical Right and to be perfectly frank, I don't like what I have seen.

If you ask me a Christian should be drawing his or her inspiration from the Gospel of Christ, with less emphasis placed on the Old Testament, the writings of Paul, and the Book of Revelations. In too many ways the Evangelical Right has begun to resemble a secular fascist movement with the name of Jesus and a plethora of nationalism connected to to make their repressive agenda more palatable to an unsuspecting public. My blogging partners (PraetorOne, Donatra, BibleBelted, and SweetPea) have written about this topic before, but I shall attempt to recap some of their main points. The death penalty; Anti-Semitism; the delegation of women to second class citizenship, that the position of mere breeders; the virulent hatred of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals; rampant nationalism intertwined with right wing religion; the triumph of pageantry and symbolism over reason and common sense: those are all traits that the Evangelical Right shares with fascist forms of government. In other words, Right Wing Evangelical Movements, including the one here in the United States in 2008, have more in common with Mussolini's Fascist movement of the 1920s and thirties than they do with either truly compassionate (read liberal) Christianity and what the Founding Fathers intended in the United States Constitution. Their primary objective is to replace both, liberal Christianity and the Constitution with their violent, rapacious interpretation of the holy text

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Evangelical Right is the apparent belief that they can be saved, find salvation, and do no wrong. Their idea of repentance goes something like this: they are saved; they can sin, turn the Bible wrong side out and do whatever they deem necessary to promote their agenda (lie, cheat, steal, it doesn't make any difference); and then save their sorry carcasses by getting saved again. Another belief held by certain Right Wing Evangelicals is that acts, good deeds count for nothing, that faith alone matters. That's all fine and dandy, but shall we be honest here? On the one hand Right Wing Evangelicals use The Bible when they want to condemn others and institute social policy. To that end they are quick out to trot out every thou and thou shalt not from Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy; but they themselves seem to have no problem with breaking those same commandments, those same thous and thou shalt nots, when they are trying to acquire temporal power. And if we have learned anything during the last seven year's it's that these people addict quickly to power. Worse yet, these people not only ignore their beloved Old Testament when they seek power. They also ignore the more compassionate and loving teachings of Jesus Christ, the beloved Savior who they so dubiously claim to love, follow, and adore.

Which brings me to another point. To listen to these people you have to wonder--REALLY WONDER--if these people revere Jesus Christ at all. They certainly don't seem to care what he had to say about a proper way to live here on earth, do they? As a matter of fact these people are so obsessed with power and preparing themselves for the afterlife, that they are perfectly willing to ignore what Christ had to say about anything--unless of course it involves one of the few, isolated phrases from the four gospels which support their fascist world view--only then do they give Jesus a second thought.

So what are they missing? I would argue that they are missing the big picture. Beyond that they aren't missing a blessed thing. (Forgive my sarcasm).

As I suggested above the Evangelical Right does NOT comprehend the fact that the Gospels of Jesus Christ compel us to behave in certain ways which which are undoubtedly alien to the Right Wing Evangelical thought process; including but not limited to a desire to work for peace. When Jesus says "Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy," (and) "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God," (and) "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God," (Matthew 5:7-9) I tend to take those teachings rather seriously. The far right is most adept at quoting those parts of the Bible which can be used to justify war, vengeance, and sadism, but they seem abysmally ignorant of those parts of the Bible in which Jesus spoke about love and forgiveness. Indeed, he reached a rhetorical peak in The Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17-49). For it is here that Christ reminds us that the we aren't only supposed to love our enemies, we are supposed to do good to those that hate us. Here we are told to "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods..." We are reminded to be merciful, told not to condemn, and again reminded to cast the motes from our own eyes before we pluck them from our brother's. In Mark 12:28-31 Jesus teaches us about love, saying: "And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reason together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like namely this,Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

If Jesus spoke about love and forgiveness he certainly proved his metal. In Luke 22:49-51, when someone cuts off the ear of the servant of the high priest (one of the individuals who was sent to arrest him) Jesus goes so far as to heal the servant. Later, in Luke 23:34 he offers that famous quote: "Father forgive them; for they know not what they do." This as he is being crucified. That should give you a basic idea as to the kind of God that I worship: gentle, patient, loving, and forgiving. Have I opted to under emphasize those parts of The Bible in which Christ is presented as somewhat prudish or perhaps even judgemental? Perhaps. But there's a difference between Liberal interpretations and Right Wing interpretations. Those of us on the left are able to comprehend the big picture. We emphasize the majority of the text, not just the dirty and violent parts which justify war and bigotry. I don't claim to have a perfect interpretation of the Bible. That would be human arrogance, but I DO believe that an inspired, interpretation of the text produces better people; people who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty as they attempt to solve some of society's major problems. That's a huge difference from the faith only crowd which refuses to believe that acts, good deeds make a difference at all. Indeed, they not only seem to believe that acts and good deeds get in the way of their faith only navel contemplation; some of those on the Evangelical right have taken the attitude that God is going to destroy the world anyhow, so why bother fixing social problems, helping people, or cleaning the environment?

Remember, the far right is using Old Testament hate, vengeance, and savagery to promote its agenda. They toss in a little Jesus and some of Saint Paul's more visceral remarks about homosexuals and women to give their message a faint glimmer of Christianity; and God knows that some of them are obsessed over the Book of Revelations and thrill at the idea of guessing who might qualify as the Antichrist. But they are also ignoring the vast majority of the most important books in the Christian canon--the four Gospels. By the same token they have stripped the Old Testament and the New Testament of its many references to loving your neighbor and helping the poor. Which brings me to another issue.

Virtually every religion has something kind to say about the poor and hungry and offers commandments or guidelines on the compassionate treatment thereof. Not only do certain factions on the far right have no sympathy for the poor, they even go so far as to blame the poor for their own plight. They are absolutely and utterly unforgiving of the weak, poor, and helpless simply because they are weak, poor and helpless. That is not the kind of forgiving nor compassionate message about which Jesus spoke. Indeed, they seem to have forgotten that on one occasion Jesus asked a certain ruler to give up his possessions, give them to the poor, and serve God. I don't think that too many of the Social Darwinists on the right would be willing to do that. Not even to serve the very God who they claim to love, worship, and adore.

Please note that it is not my intention to deliver a sermon here on Sirens. Rather, I am attempting to present a very brief cross samplings of the kinds of scripture that inspire liberal Christians. Judging from the repugnant behaviour we have seen on the right--the war mongering; the transference of wealth and power from the neediest in society to a wealthy elite; the demonization of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, Hispanics, Blacks (I've about had it with the myth of the Black Welfare Queen), non fundamentalists, non believers, non-Christians, non-believers, ad infinitum--I can only conclude that some people may be reading their Bibles but that they don't know how to interpret them. Instead of accepting a gentler, more compassionate take on Christianity, the Right Wing Evangelicals appear to have given in to the darker sides of their natures. In this regard their version of Christianity can only be regarded as a failure.

So what do I, as a liberal Christian believe in? First I believe in Jesus and then in an inspired interpretation of the Holy Text. Whether one likes it or not the Bible often speaks in metaphors and parables. Just because scientific research indicates that something is contrary to what the Bible says it doesn't mean that we have to throw the science out with the bathwater. Take the idea of evolution. The Bible never really says how long the first days were. Might they have been thousands of years long? Millions of years long? BILLIONS of year long? Who's to say? But I am not uncomfortable with the idea of evolution at all. Indeed, the people who are the most opposed to evolution appear to be proof of the very theory they want to undermine by virtue of their Neanderthal natures. As a liberal Christian I believe in Church/State separation. Just because I have chosen a set of religious beliefs by which I want t live does not mean that I have the right to use the force of local, county, state, or the federal government to help me impose those beliefs on others. If I want to share my religion with others there's an old fashioned way to do it. I can grab up some Church literature and a Bible, and I can go from door to door discussing my faith with others. But that's hard work and there are times when I wonder if the far right display to obtain government help in spreading Right Wing Religion is little more than a modern day manifestation of laziness.

I also want to get involved with social problems and environmental issues. I genuinely believe when Jesus told us to help the poor and less fortunate that he wasn't doing so because it was a slow news day and he wanted to stir the proverbial pot. When Jesus kept company with what the far right might call the dredges of society, he (Jesus) was setting an example for the rest of us, telling us that there's work to be done and that if we want to serve God we may also do so by helping those who society has trampled on. Interesting how the far right ignores that message and embraces the exact opposite--the persecution of the poor. That aside, I have chosen to serve by working with young addicts and alcoholics. For the record I am 22-years old and I am a recovering alcohol/heroin addict. I was also diagnosed with the HIV virus in 2004. And while I have been clean for just a little more than four years, I am dedicated to educating kids about the dangers of drug addiction and the use of shared needles, which was how I contracted HIV. Don't worry. I'm taking the drug cocktails and the experts tell me that for the time being I appear to be doing quite nicely. I probably won't develop full blown AIDS for years to come. And until I do I intend to serve my God and his human creations in the best way(s) that I can.

In closing I want to add the following comments. It seems to me that one of the hugest differences between Right Wing Evangelicals and Liberal Christians is that the authoritarian Right Wing Evangelical followers almost invariably need a leader--a politician, a political party, a local pastor, etc--to give them direction. They need a prepackaged theology (some might say dogma) which requires mere obedience and a minimum of critical thinking. In sharp contrast, Liberal Christianity, by its very nature, demands that you demonstrate a certain amount of independent thought. I suppose it might be argued that Liberal Christians believe that God gave us brains and that we have a duty to use them. But that's hard work. That means that you not only have to depend on your faith it also means that you have to look at individual situations, weigh the alternatives, and make decisions based on the variables involved. That's a huge difference from the kind of blind obedience that we saw in Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and W's America. And for all I know that may be why America's mainstream, Protestant Churches have been losing members to the Evangelical Right. Times are difficult, chaotic, and confusing. The overworked, underpaid, and stressed out American people are looking for simple answers to complicated, intertwined problems when in fact there are no simple answers nor simple solutions. I suspect that in many ways it is easier to let others handle the thinking and to go with the Evangelical flow than it is to sit down and think seriously about what's going on in the world today. Liberal Christianity on the other hand, requires just that. It requires critical thinking and a willingness to look at all solutions. And as I suggested, that requires a lot of hard work in an era when an increasing number of people are no longer up to the task.

MATTHEW5

FUNDAMENTALISM DOES NOT EXIST

2008-03-03T11:14:00.000-08:00

Fundamentalism Does Not Exist:

LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE EVANGELICAL RIGHT

By Matthew 5

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love to one another."

John 13:34-35

Matthew 22:35-40

So what are they missing? I would argue that they are missing the big picture. Beyond that they aren't missing a blessed thing. (Forgive my sarcasm).

MATTHEW5

Should I Be Disgusted Or Not?

2008-02-29T17:54:00.001-08:00

SHOULD I BE

DISGUSTED OR NOT?

By SweetPea

Well, well, well. It appears as if Obama and Hilary are openly courting the GLBT vote! That right my pets. Obama has decided to take out ads in four, various news outlets in Ohio and Texas, most notably The Dallas Voice, Outlook Weekly, and The Gay Peoples Chronicles. Not to be out done, Frau Clinton has given six interviews with six gay news outlets including TheAdvocate, Logo, and The Washington Blade.

As a 24-year-old gay male I am of course TOUCHED by the sudden attention, but I also have to remind the readers here at Sirens that there's a huge diference between pre-election LIP SERVICE and the granting of equal rights after the election. In other words I am still not convinced. Right now Clinton and Obama will do or say anything if it means more votes and another delegate or two, so I am not quite convinced as to their sincerity.

As I said in a recent Post, Obama and Clinton hae spent most of this campaign trying to play it safe, playing to the center when everyone knows that the proper way to run a primary is to play to your base during the run up to the convention and THEN play to the middle after you capture the nomination. (Frankly I'm kind of hoping for a brokered conention in which NEITHER of these clowns is elected and a third, more suitable candidate steps into the limelight, but that's probably just a pipedream.)

But it seems to me as if neither Obama nor Clinton bothered to play to their liberal constituencies. Instead they ran to the center from the get go, as if they had each already been nominated, and as far as I'm concerned that was NOT good news for the GLBT communty at all. It sent a signal that they aren't as liberal as we thought they were; especially Clinton who is little more than a mouthpiece for that Republican think tank, the DLC. Obama may be a tad more liberal, but as I have noted before, he also tends to associate with homophobic, black evangelical pastors, and if you want to hear the truth, I am sick to shit of anything or anyone with the word evangelical associated with it. Ditto to the word fundamentalist. Whether I am repressed by a white, conservative Bible thumper or a supposedly progressive black Bible thumper makes little difference to me. Repression is repression and I wll not vote for anyone, DLC-associated or evangelical-associated, who wants to mess around with my standing as an American citizen. I see no reason why my rights should be at risk because of somebody's loony political or religious beliefs. I want and demand the right to marry and adopt a family. I want nationwide, equal employment opportunities. I demand stricter laws against hate speech and (especially) hate crimes which are little more than terrorist acts designed to send a message to a specific group of people. Which reminds me. I suggest that you take a look at what's going on in Southern Florida these days. I won't digress for too long here, but Southern Florida has become a hot bed of violence against the GLBT community, a fact which I am sure has nothing to do with increased hate speech by right wing religious and political leaders. And now that I think about it, perhaps the silence we have heard from our presdential candidates regarding gay rights and GLBT issues in general, has led some to believe that no one really cares if a few dykes and faggots are injured or even murdered. As I said before, the candidates' silence has been deafening.

So now that Obama and Clinton are desperate for votes they suddenly realize that there is a GLBT community out here with real needs and concerns; and I have to say that I don't know if I should be flattered or disgusted.

--
Let Freedom Ring,

The Coalition for a Democratic America

GETTING SHAFTED AGAIN

2008-02-29T17:44:00.001-08:00

GETTING SHAFTED AGAIN

By Sweet Pea

Well, it must be a presidential election year because once again Gays and Lesbians are getting the short end of the proverbial stick. We all know that John McCain will do his very best to make certain that Gays and Lesbians will never achieve full equality under the law, meaning that he will in all probability try to deny us the benefits of civil unions, much less the rights to marry and to enjoy the financial benefits that come from a marital union.

So that means that we stand a much better chance with the Democratic candidates for president, doesn't it? Well, to be succinct, NO.

The original Clinton Administrations did very little to help Gays and Lesbians. And despite the half baked idea that Clinton was our first Black President, he did very little to help Blacks. In fact the Clintons are little more that moderate Republicans, corporate whores in Democratic clothing who employed corporatist economic policies which harmed the very people they were claiming to uplift, than they are legitimate liberals. I suppose, in a warped sort of way, this meant that Gays and Lesbians were better off than racial minorities and poor people, because the Clintons never had the guts to be seen with GLBT leaders and politicians. Instead, they chose to play it safe. They avoided controversy by pretending that the GLBT community didn't even exist.

Some things never change. When was the last time you saw Hilary Clinton appear at a rally with a well known GLBT leader, clergyman, or politician? Can you say "virtually never?" Hilary would much rather play it safe, playing and running to the center and then governing--if elected--from just right of center. Just like the 1990s when they ran a joint presidency out of the White House. Let's face it. The Clinton's aren't about do or be seen doing anything that the center or their corporatist masters might find controversial. And that means they will ignore an entire constituency, human rights be damned.

So if the Clinton's can't be trusted, certainly we can trust Mister Obama.

Yeah. Right. Tell me another one.

Obama is so obsessed with his idea of a big tent Democratic Party that he would much rather attract Independents and Moderate Republicans than listen to a Democratic constituency. Obama is so determined to promote a big tent Democratic Party that one wonders if he isn't willing to sit down with right wing morons like Pat Robertson than with the people who have carried water for the Democratic Party. Well, I have news for Mister Obama. Asking the GLBT constituency of the Democratic Party to sit in the same tent as the ultrafundamentalists in this country is a lot like asking the Prime Minister of Israel to sit down at a table with members of the Aryan Nation. Moreover, Obama seems indebted to homophobic, Black Evangelical Pastors who would treat the GLBT community as shabbily as any right wing ideology. Clearly, Obama is not a friend of the GLBT community.

So what, exactly, are we supposed to do? To whom are we supposed to turn during this election cycle? To be honest I haven't the foggiest idea. The only thing I know at the present time is that the GLBT Community, with a Log Cabin exceptions, has been very loyal to the Democratic Party and to date the Democratic Candidates have chosen to ignore us. That's all fine a dandy but I am not the kind of person who serves a Political Party without some expectation of results. I don't like betrayal and that's how feel this year.

Either the Democratic Party can show a little appreciation and do the right thing by supporting full and equal rights for everyone or I can vote for an alternative that isn't ashamed to be seen with GLBT leaders and politicians.

PRAYING FOR OPPONENTS' DEATHS

2008-02-29T17:39:00.001-08:00

THE LATEST IN HYPOCRISY:

PRAYING FOR THE DEATHS OF YOUR RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL OPPONENTS

By PraetorOne

BibleBelted

Enlightenment

"Set thou a wicked man over him and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any favor to his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. Because that he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart. As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water , and like oil into his bones. Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually. Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the Lord and of them that speak evil against my soul."

Psalm 109, verses 6 through 20

When the staff members of Americans United For Separation of Church and State asked the IRS to investigate the Reverend Wiley Drake, Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention for what they believed were Drake's violation(s) of federal tax law, Americans United had no idea that they would soon find themselves on the receiving end of Imprectatory Prayers in which Drake and his ilk were openly praying for the physical harm and even deaths of American United Staff members. For those of you who missed this twisted imbecility-and we're bound and determined that you won't--Mister Drake and his demented followers went right to the Book of Psalms to find violent imagery which they promptly transformed into the Christian versions of death curses. Among the verses that they bantered about were:

"Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into hell: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them."

Psalm 55, verse 15.

"Break their teeth , O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O Lord, Let them melt away as waters which run continuously: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be cut in pieces. As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun. Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take away as with a whirlwind, both living and in his wrath. The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked."

Psalm 58, verses 6 through 10

"But God shall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy scalp of such an one as goeth on still in his trespasses. The Lord said, I will bring again Ba-shan, I will bring my people again from the depths of the sea: That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same."

Psalm 68, verses 21 through 23

"Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welcome, let it become a trap. Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake. Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents."

Psalm 69, verses 22 through 25.

You just have to give the Radical Religious Right credit. When they decide to play the part of the Taliban they don't go half way. Indeed, they have done a splendid job at transforming the Christian God of love and peace into a savage hit man who protects potential tax criminals. You can't get much more depraved than that, but then again are we truly surprised? Mister Drake is the Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention the largest Protestant Denomination in the United States and it goes without saying that this group has a rather bizarre background to say the least. First and foremost, it was created in the Nineteenth Century as a refuge for Christians (and I use the term loosely) who justified the institution of slavery on religious and political grounds. As a matter of fact it took more than 100 years for the denomination to finally--FINALLY--admit that its stand on slavery had been wrong. Then, beginning in the 1980s the Church underwent a process in which it was taken over by the most rabid of right wing Fundamentalists; and I really don't think that we have to repeat what this meant for women in the Southern Baptist Convention. Indeed, the stand taken by the new leadership wasn't only that women had come a long way, they believed that women had come too far and were bound and determined to establish the supposed superiority over women based on Biblical diktats. And while we're at it, let's remember that this is the same church which once told us that "God does not hear the prayers of a Jew." So when we consider the history and often demented behavior that his organization has shown in the past we really shouldn't be surprised when a man like Mister Drake resorts to bastardizing the Holy Text into the modern day version of a Satanic Death Curse.

In many ways this is the Southern Baptist equivalent of a fatwa. Exactly how does it differ from the Ayatollah Khomeini placing a death sentence on the head of author Salmon Rushdie because Rushdie dared to write a few critical, or at least nontraditional, comments about Islam? How does this differ from rogue, Islamic clerics who issue fatwas against their sworn enemies, usually because someone dared to criticize their religious beliefs? I would argue that there is very little difference. The people who George W. Bush refers to as Islamo-Fascists routinely pray for the harm or even deaths of their opponents, and by offering up Imprectatory Prayers, Mister Drake and his troglodytic ilk have devolved to the very level of the people who they themselves undoubtedly hate the most.

Well, this may come as a shock to Mister Drake, but the Bible is not meant to be used in the same way as the The Satanic Bible, or as if it were some book about Black Magic in the occult section of your favorite book store. Or at the very least he should know hat he Bible is something more. As the Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention he is the third man at the top of the Southern Baptist hierarchy. Moreover, he is currently running for the position of President which would give him even more power and influence. Which brings me to another point. When you read the Psalms that Mister Drake chose it becomes obvious that he somehow thinks of himself as a victim. Well, friends and neighbors, I have news for you. People with that much power and influence are seldom victims. They have the power to victimize and to create victims, but they are often such bullies and thugs that they can hardly be thought of as legitimate victims themselves. But they do like to play the part of the phony victim whenever it scores points with their weak-minded followers.

Of course I can hear the Radical Right Wing voices out there right now. What harm is there in a prayer? Well, as I have said all along, these are not your typical run of the mill prayers, and it helps to understand the nature of the people who are offering those prayers. These people believe that the power of prayer is real; they believe in the power of prayer as a matter of basic instinct. So when they pray for the harm and/or deaths of other human beings they believe they are going to have a effect. Moreover, you always run the risk of the proverbial loose cannon deciding to transform himself into an instrument of God who l then act upon those prayers as if they were instructions from the All Mighty.

Can it be that we have become so obsessed over the idea of Islamic terrorists that we have inadvertently overlooked the possibility of Christian terrorists? The last I knew issuing death threats (and that's what these so-called prayers really are) is a form of terrorism. They are directed against a single group and they are clearly intended to create a climate of fear and intimidation. At the very least we might consider the possibility that Mister Drake and his merry band of paranoiacs are engaging in a form of hate speech, and that's a lot more worrisome an his alleged wrongdoings with the IRS.

(Authors' notes: All Biblical quotes come from The King James version of the Holy Bible.)

PraetorOne

Bible Belted

Enlightenment

It's More Important Now

2008-02-29T17:30:00.001-08:00

IT'S MORE IMPORTANT NOW:

THE WORLD WE WANT FOR OUR CHILD

By Donatra and PraetorOne

Having a baby can change one's perspectives in ways that one never would have suspected. Throughout the summer, fall, and winter we knew that we did not want or child to be raised in the Republican cuckoo land that has become the United States, and now that our child, a healthy baby boy named Jeffrey Michael, has arrived in the world we are more determined than ever to turn this country around while there is still a country left to actually turn around. I don't know if any of you out there are new or expecting parents, but as far as my husband, PraetorOne, and I are concerned we are even more dedicated to changing this country than we were during the run up to January 13th, the day that our first child was born.

So what do we want? That is a loaded question.

First and foremost we want to see an end to the war in Iraq--as quickly as possible. Thanks to George W. Bush we are now stuck in this quagmire and if John McCain has a say in the matter we'll be there for at least another decade or two with even more American involvement. That is not a thrilling prospect. I suspect that on some level, McCain, who is well known for his occasional outbursts of temper, is STILL bitter about the time he spent as a POW during the Vietnam War; and far from making him more sympathetic to the horrors of war, I suspect that he believes on some level that since HE had to suffer that OTHER young men and women might as well suffer too. In other words, we need a Democrat in the White House who will do more than issue half-baked platitudes about how much he or she supports the troops. We need a Democrat in office who will support the troops so much that he or she is willing to stop the open bleeding and bring them home right now.

Another thing that we would like our child to experience is the sensation of growing up in a nation that actually produces and sells real products. I don't know about you but as a new mother I am sick and tired of purchasing baby toys, bottles, paper diapers, etc which are made in China. This will probably come as real shock to some people but there was a time when we actually produced real products; quality automobiles, toys, appliances, etc and when we didn't sell off our natural resources; when we were owed money and not paying it out through the wazoo in interest to foreign nations. For that matter we would also like to scrap trade agreements like NAFTA which have proven disastrous for every nation involved. The free traders simply didn't know what they were talking about when they proposed these monsters, and no that they have been instrumental in destroying the American economy the free traders are too proud and arrogant to admit that they ave screwed up royally. To remedy the situation we need more democrats who will again, stop the open bleeding, and switch from free trade to fair trade agreements, essentially burning NAFTA and its sister agreements in the same way one would burn a 20 year mortgage--with absolute glee and celebration. Call us funny, but we want our child to live and thrive in a country where American jobs produce American products for sale both, here and abroad. We want our child to benefit from good wages and workplace protections, and we want him to benefit from an affordable education system, perhaps even a publicly funded college/university system that won't bury him under years of debt. We understand that there will always be service sector, burger flipping, jobs, but in the past those jobs were meant for teenagers, as stepping stones to better things, not jobs for adults with homes and families. In short, we want our son to grow up in the America of old; a thriving, productive America of strong workers and strong unions--where eight hour work days and workplace safety standards were the norms and not the exceptions.

And then we have that little matter of health care. We know that we won't stay young forever, and by the same standard we know that our

child will grow up, marry, and have children of his own. Those are normal parts of living. But by the same token we also see a lot of squeezed individuals who are forced to raise families and take care of sick parents at the same time. This may be an acceptable situation to the Republican Party but it is not at all acceptable to the parents/children who are forced to deal with both, the problems of raising a younger generation and caring for an older generation. Physically and financially this is an unfair burden on the squeezed individual who undoubtedly has enough trouble taking care of just one generation. Now toss in the costs of medical procedures, medical devices, and drugs, and you have a nightmare for which only the wealthiest of Americans can afford to pay. So what do we want? We want what a majority of Americas want and what most industrialized western nations already have: socialized medicine. There, we used the word. Socialized. Learn to love it and get over it because any opinion poll you take reveals that this is what the American people really want. Hopefully we can see a day when we have enough Democrats in office with a Democratic President who will be able to pass the proper legalisation. And we hope to see some movement in that direction during our child's lifetime.

Of course all of this will be meaningless unless we get a handle on the environmental degradation that has been another outstanding trademark of the Bush Administration. We desperately want to see science, logic, and reason replace the faith (some might say delusion) based reality in which this Administration and its cadre of flat earthers have been ruling here since 2001 and probably before. We want to get a handle on global warming; clean our soil, air, and skies; clean up the damage that Bush has done and get back to the kind of serious ecological/environmental protections that we instituted during the 1970s.

In a related topic, we want quality schools. We want strong science programs based on cold hard facts. We don't want the pipe dream of Creationism to replace the Theory of Evolution. We don't want the Germ Theory of Disease replaced by a belief in possession, evil spirits, and bogeymen. The Theory of Gravity works just fine as it is, and we don't need George W. Bush replacing it with the "W" Theory of Celestial Duck Tape. And while were at it, let's get rid of the No Child Left Unrecruited clause in No Child Left Behind. We are perfectly capable of telling our child what we think about war and we don't need some representative from the Bush military industrial complex to sell our child a barrel of goods about challenges and educational opportunities through the military. If our child was to go to college we will help him in that endeavour. We don't need some recruiter pawing through his personal information or calling us at our home. We do not appreciate a bloated, federal program which takes the local control out of education and which forces children to learn how to take tests without actually learning anything else. Nor do we appreciate the fact that No Child Let Behind crowds out educational opportunities for art, theatre, and drama, condemning children who might be talented in those areas to drudgery and overall failure.

Likewise we want a stricter separation of Church and State. This will come as a shock to some, but since Praetor dumped the Buddhist faith and started to attend a very liberal Episcopalian Church, he has again proven that he doesn't need George W. Bush and the Radical Religious Right to select his religion for him. He was a strong proponent of Church/State Separation before and he is STILL a strong proponent of Church/State Separation. We don't need any level of government, be it local, county, state, or federal, telling us how or when to pray. We don't need multi-ton monuments, crosses, and public displays to remind us of our values. And if you DO feel that you need an external symbol to remind yourself of your religious beliefs than review quickly the sincerity of your morals and values. At the same time we see no reason why we should be compelled to support the prayers, symbols, and so-called morality of any belief system save our own.

We also want our son to grow up in a nation that values Constitutional liberties. For even years we have sat by while George W. Bush. the Neocons, and the Radical Religious Right have routinely defecated on the Bill of Rights and called it proper. Well, we know that torture, invasion of privacy, snooping through peoples papers, phone calls, and emails, and nauseam are not in sync with the Constitution and anyone who thinks they are needs to go back to grade school for a remedial class in civics and basic American government.

In short, we want our child to grow up in a civilized America, not the barbaric parody under which we have been living since 2001.

So what about you? If you're a parent do you have any hopes for he future? I what kind of country do you want your sons and/or daughters to live? We'd love to hear from you.

Donatra and PraetorOne

Conservative Religious Culture of Death

2008-02-29T12:57:00.001-08:00

CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND THEIR CULTURE OF DEATH

By Rachel and Karen

Edited by BibleBelted and Donatra

In his wonderful article, "Pro-Death Conservatives Are Responsible for High Abortion Rates," George Manbiot openly places the blame for high abortion rates on the Catholic Church as well as other conservative religions which ban contraception and which seek to reduce women to the positions of second class citizens.

According to Manbiot as societies modernize their medical practices, as they gain a better grasp on medical technology, there is a brief period when both, abortion and the use of contraception rise together. But a study in Family Planing Persectives reveals that once birth rates stabilize, the use of contraception will contiue to increase while the abortion rate falls. In other words there is a direct relationship between the use of contraception and falling abortion rates. Once 80 percent of the population is using contraception the incidents of abortion drop off dramatically. As the modernizing society advances medically the need for abortion steadily decreases with the increase in contraception; and yet for some bizzare reason or reasons, the male leaders of conservative religion--most notably those in the Catholic Church--cling tightly to their preconceived fantasies about contraception, insisting that both contraception and abortion a culture of death, when in fact it is male-dominated conservative religion which is producing a culture of death.

As proof Mister Manbiot offers the following evidence.

In a Lancet study conducted from 1995 to 2003, results indicated a global decrease in the numer of abortions, dropping from 35 per 1,000 women each year to 29 per 1,000 women. Coincidentally, this period of decrease coincides with what Pope Benedict XVI calls "globalized secular culture." But the fact that a more secularized culture produces fewer abortions has clearly gone over the aging Pontiff's head. Moreover , the highest abortion rates can be found in the most conservative and religious areas of the world. In secular Western Europe the abortion rate stands at 12 per 1,000, although there has been a slight increase because of the immigration of people from areas in the world where contraception is not well understood. In southern Europe, which tends to be more religious and more conservative, the abortion rate stands at 23 per 1,000 women. In Central America the figure stands at 25 per 1,000 women; in South America the figure stands at 33 abortions per 1,000 women, while in Eastern Africa the figure stands at 39 abortions per 1,000 women. A truly interesting case is the former Soviet Union which in 2003, had an abortion rate of 44 per 1,000 women. Under Communism contraception was strictly forbidden, virtually impossible to obtain. But as bad as 44 abortions per 1,000 women may sound, the figure had been twice as high in 1995, decreasing as more information about contraception fed into the post Communist society.

Sadly, half of the abortions performed in the world are performed under unsafe and illegal circumstaces. In East Africa and Latin America they account for nearly ALL of the abortions; and according to the World Health Organization between 65,000 and 70,000 women who receive said illegal abortions actually die. Another five million suffer severe complications such as disease, physical injury, and sterility, ad nauseam.

Another area of contention has been sex education. The typical right wing jargon tells us that if you teach young people about their bodies that they're going to become rampant sex machines. Well, I have news for the right wingers. Adolescence is a time of physical and hormonal change, and thanks to our various nutritional programs in public schools and elsewhere, puberty, adolescence, has been arriving at younger and younger ages. The idea that we can allow children to go uneducated about the operations of their own bodies and what is happening to them borders on the politically insane. lAnd yet we allow the right wingers to draw false correlations between sex education and every social problem out there, ranging from teenage pregnancy to venereal disease, to the AIDS epidemic. But once again the facts don't hold up, especially in the area of teenage pregnancy. According to the article by Mister Manbiot, the British Medical Journal studied four programs which were designed to promote celibacy. The results were interesting in that they associated the four programs with increases in teen pregnancy. Is it a coincidence that both, the United Kingdom, and the United States with their disproportionate reliance on celibacy only programs both have high rates of teenage pregnancy? Probably not.

It seems to me that there are other reasons, beyond faith and morality, for wanting to limit a woman's right to safe, legal contraception. In many ways conservative policies on contraception are throw backs to the ancient Middle East when various tribes and empires viewed every pregnancy as a potential soldier to help protect and expand a given empire. Under situations such as those women were seen as little more than breeders. The right wing religious leaders may not be trying to protect an empire but they are engaged in a cultural war, and that means that they still need women to serve as breeders to keep the churches full. And, I might add, the collection plate. Beyond that one can't help but wonder if this isn't a risky birth scheme devised by right wing religious leaders to guarantee their power bass for generations to come. That's what it's all about isn't it? Outpopulating people of other faiths so as to impose some kind of right wing theocracy. Right? So what if few women die in back alley slaughter houses. So what if a few women puncture their uteruses with coat hangers and bleed to death? So what if an illegal abortion leaves a woman sterile? It seems to me that the real problem here is that we have a maladjusted clique of spoiled little boys in mens bodies who never grew up and who never learned how to respect women. Indeed, the degree to which these immature little brats would deny women full personhood is indicative as to the levels of hatred and immaturity with which we are dealing.

Angels of Light or Right Wing Hate Mongers?

2007-10-20T12:10:00.001-07:00

ANGELS OF LIGHT OR RIGHT WING HATE MONGERS?
By Donatra

Are you sick and tired of Republican attack ads? Are you sick and tired of verbal assaults on twelve-year-old-boys and two-year-old-girls by rich, white fat men wo share a basic contempt for change and who practice rhetorical savagery as a virtue? Yeah. I am too. And I think I finally understand the reason behind all the right wing hate-mongering and vitriole.

For all intents and purposes conservatives tend to view human beings as evil, demented creatures. Several years ago one of our blogging partners found himself involved in a truly viceral school board race in which members of the supposedly Christian Right were trying to take over a local school board. He wasn't running for office himself, but as an independent thinker and as a child of the 18th Century Enlightenment, he gradually discovered that the indviduals with whom he was debating had a very different view of the world than mainstream Christians. As we all know, many right wing Christians believe that human beings are products of the Biblical fall from grace as told in the Book of Genesis. They genuinely believe that because Adam and Eve fell from grace that every subsequent human being on the face of the earth must be a depraved, sinful criiminal at heart and that societies need strong, perhaps even repressive forms of government to keep the evil, criminal sides of our natures under strict control. To that end conservatives, especially Fundamentalist Christians, place a greater emphasis on control and regulation and less emphasis on personal freedom, constitutional liberties, and representative forms of government in general. They believe that if you give the people too much freedom that they will act on the depraved, sinful natures, creating chaos and wrecking havoc.

That however, was not what many of the Constitutional Framers believed. Many of the most influential framers were liberal Christians or Deists who believed that mankind, while not entirely perfectable, was at least somewhat perfectable. To that end they emphasized public morality as opposed to the kind of Puritanical, private morality with which the far right has so disturbingly obsessed. The far right in this country, again, the Fundamentalist Right in particular, believes that the purpose of the federal government is to control the private lives of the indvidual, to act as a kind of thought or morality police to prevent the ignorant masses from hurting themselves or others. As a dirct result we see a twisted preoccupation with sexual matters, and other personal issues which are none of the government's business. By the same token the far right dismisses the idea of public morality, so while the far right tramples on the Constitution to invade our private lives, indeed our privacy in general, it is perfectly content to tolerate the suffering of large groups of people. Whether it's uninsured children, the sick, the old, the weak, or the infirm, etc, the far right operates under the false assumption that people deserve to suffer because--you guessed it--Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. In sharp comparison, the Framers of our Constitution, like modern day liberals, were less concerned with private morality than they were in public morality. In this regard they emphasized the central teachings of Jesus. Indeed, it might even be suggested that the NonChristian Deists had a better understadning of Christ's morality than the suposed Christians who use the name of Christ but who spit upon his techings whenever tose teachings become a political inconvenience. Unike the radical right, Liberals take Christ seriously when he talks about healing the sick, feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and turning the other cheek. Unlike the Conservatives who pay mere lip service to what Jesus taught, Liberals believe that civilized governments take care of their weakest citizens.

In recent days we have seen the end result of conservaive thought (an oxymoron if ever there was one!). We have seen a President, who once preached an empty gospel of Compassionate Conservatism, as he vetoed a program that wuld have provided health insurance to lower and middle income children. And what was the Conservative reasoning behind this veto? if we help a few more people now we may be tempted to help more people in the future. NOOOOOO. We wouldn't want to do that. Why, who ever heard of a government that didn't leave its chjildren vulnerable to illness and possible death. We wouldn't want to prevent that. Not when we have some archaic paradigm that says we have to punish everyone because Eve tempted Adam in the Garden of Eden. And while we're at it, suppose we talk a little more about the rhetorical attacks by conservatives on defenseless children. Will someone please tell me just what in the hell a two-year-old girl did to merit the dubious labels of evil, sinful, and/or criminal? From where I'm sitting the most this poor child has ever done has, in all liklihood, has been to poop in her pants or knock over a glass or orange juice. Certainly that did not merit public attacks in our corporate media. Then we have the outrageous attacks on a 12-year-old boy who recoevered from a coma. What exactly did this boy do to deserve public humiliation? Was he in the Garden of Eden? The last I knew he probably wasn't, and yet the far right had no trouble when it came to picking on someone who wasn't able to defend himself. rather like Anne Coulter's attack of the 911 widows.

On the bright side, I suspect that the American people may be waking up to the basic fact that some of the talking heads (I so want to say driping penisis) on the far right simply don't know what they are talking about. They are so convinced that everyone else is evil and depraved that they refuse to cast the very large and blinding motes from their own eyes. And that's the problem, the underlaying weakness in their basic philosophy, their basic paradigm. If people are corrupt, evil, and sinful, then how can we be certain that the conservativs themselves aren't judging others by themselves? How do we know that they aren't engaged in the fine art of projection? Doesn't it stand to reason that if, according to their belief system--all people are criminals and sinners that they themselves are also criminals and sinners and that we have merely elected devils in the guise of self-righteous angels to be our dictators, tyrants, and fuhrers? It may well me. I know, I know, the Funamentalist right may wel argue that they have been filld with the Holy Spirit, that they have been chosen by God. But how can we be sure? For if we take a literal translation of Biblican text, we arrive at a point where that same text warns us about deception.

Does any one recall that inconvenient verse in 2 Corinthians, 11:14? "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." Isn't that what can happen when we begin to believe in the natural superiority of both, ourselves and our belief systems? Do we not begin to accept evil as a form of benevolence?

Looking at the Social Darwinism that has become our economic policy; at the violence, sadism, and mass murder that has become our foreign policy; at the torture, corruption and prevarication that has become our legal system, and the ceaseless flow of verbal attacks against the weak and defenseless which has become modern day journalism, I would suspect that the term conservative morality is also an oxymoron and that we have exchanged Christ's morality for deregulated savagery.

CHEAP GRACE

2007-10-06T12:14:00.001-07:00

CHEAP GRACE:
THE HYPOCRTICAL AND DESTRUCTIVE NATURE OF THE PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN RIGHT

By Trevor, Jeffrey, Brandon, Daniel, Kyle and Brian

"We don't lie, cheat, or steal on Sunday, but God help you on Monday."
An old Midwestern joke

Call it what you like: cheap grace, hypocrisy, dime store theology, a mockery of the Holy bible, sociopathy: In the end it is almost invariably excused by two of the worst and most abused passages in the New Testament:

"And whosoever shall not receive you nor hear your words when ye depart out of that house or city, Shake off the dust of your feet..."
-------The Gospel of Saint Matthew 10:14

And

"Jesus answered and said unto him, verily, verily I say unto thee except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily I saith unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. Marvel not that I said..."
-------The Gospel of Saint John 3: 3-7

-------One of the great ironies (read deceptions) in the year 2006 was the utter lack of consistency that the so-called Christian Right brings to both, the political and religious arenas. Certain pastors and politicians argue that the Ten Commandments are so important and such an integral part of Western Civilization, that they must turn them into graven images, mere idols as a part of the Christian Right's ongoing war against western civilization. The Ten Commandments, argues the Christian Right, must be forced into virtually every aspect of our public institutions, from village squares to court house lawns, to school rooms and governmental buildings etc. But what the Christian Right fails to tell you is that while reactionary religious leaders on the far right are trying to force the Ten Commandments on everyone else, those same religious leaders are telling their own congregations that the Ten Commandments are obsolete, that Jesus Christ nailed them to the cross and that we are all saved through grace alone, not deeds or actions .

-------To be honest, I have some major problems with that kind of theology (or lack thereof). In many ways it reminds of me of an under-Christianized version of navel contemplation, an excuse for doing nothing, for not getting involved with the world condition while human suffering and abject misery run rampant. Ideally, faith or grace-based theology is supposed to work like this: You are born again; you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, and if you are sincere in your acceptance you will naturally be guided to behave in a way that is acceptable and pleasing in the eyes of the Lord because you have been filed with the Holy Spirit. But as we all know, there is a tremendous difference between the stated idea and the actual end result, the every day practice of one's religion.

-------Far from being filled with the Holy Spirit, it appears as if some religious leaders and their authoritarian followers are filled with what John Dean refers to as "cheap grace." The same appears to be true of certain right wing politicians. Instead of behaving in a more spiritual or compassionate manner, many authoritarian Christians use cheap grace as an excuse to engage in a remorseless, over-glorified ego trip which is anything but Christian or beneficial. Convinced that the Ten Commandments are obsolete, they substitute a clear cut code of moral and ethical behavior with a quick prayer in which they beg the Lord to forgive them. Believing that Jesus now sits up at night to admire them, they then operate under the false assumption that they can transgress, perform unspeakable acts, beg for God's forgiveness, and then proceed to commit even more outrageous transgressions against their fellow man or even society at large.

-------It is as as if these individuals had worn down their consciences with cheap grace--a remarkable and frightening process. "One of the things a conscience is supposed to do is make us act better, but when you have a means of eliminating guilt there is not much incentive to clean up your act. You see how conscience gets short circuited," (Robert) Altmeyer noted. He added. "bad behavior may produce guilt, but it is easily washed away. So then more bad behavior can result again and again, getting removed very easily through religion. There is a terrible closing to this reality. The lack of guilt over things he has done in the past can actually contribute to the self-righteousness of the authoritarian. And this self-righteousness has proven, in experiments, to be the main factor that unleashes the right wing authoritarian's aggressive impulses." He concluded, "I have called them 'God's designated hitters.' We end up with the irony that the people who think they are so very good end up doing so very much evil, and more remarkably, they are probably the last people in the world who will ever realize the connection between the two." There is no better explanation for the behavior of many Christian conservatives, for it accounts for their license to do ill, Christian beliefs notwithstanding."
-------From Conservatives Without Conscience (page 64)
------- by John Dean

The results have been disastrous: A loose-tongued evangelist who endorses the assassination of foreign leaders; a sociopathic Texan Governor turned sociopathic (P)resident who rejoices at the ideas of war, death, torture, and stealing from the poor to give to the rich; a right wing party which embraces the Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism while spewing disingenuous double talk about democracy and freedom. Why, when you listen to these warped individuals, you practically have to stop and ask yourself: Are they quoting from a Catholic or Protestant Bible, or have they embraced the teachings of Anton LaVay's Satanic Bible? If you didn't know better you'd think that the teachings of Jesus were irrelevant to these phony Christians. Their warped theology may well teach that Jesus nailed the Ten Commandments to the cross, but they don't have a clue as to what Jesus himself had to say. Indeed, they seem to believe that when Jesus spoke (in the New Testament) he was only doing so because it was a boring Tuesday afternoon and he didn't know what else to do with himself. But if Jesus is indeed both divine and perfectly human (without sin) then why do these pontificating hate mongers ignore their own Savior when he asks us to feed the hungry, give alms to the poor, and turn the other cheek? Again, the answer seems to be cheap grace. They don't mind bastardizing the name of Jesus Christ as long as then can exploit His name to promote hate, warfare, violence, racism, homophobia, and Social Darwinism. But when Jesus specifically asks them to be more generous, less hateful, and more forgiving, they not only nail the Ten Commandments to the cross--they also nail the teachings of their beloved Lord and Savior to the cross. All the while begging the deity to forgive them so they can turn around, undermine His teachings, and move on to even more shameful and damaging acts.

-----Moreover moral codes aren't the only victims. Other victims include legitimate Christianity itself and the Red State Cesspools where the Republican/Pseudo Christian fecal matter has backed up into the lives of Red State citizens. Consider the following:

-------* THE 10 STATES WITH THE HIGHEST OVER ALL INCARCERATION RATES: Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Arizona , and Delaware; Delaware neing the only blue state. In other words, nine out of ten were Red States. [ Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners, 2003 (November 2004)]

-------* THE 10 STATES WITH THE HIGHEST RATE OF FEMALE INCARCERATION IN 2003: Mississippi, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, Alabama, Nevada, Colorado. Ten out of ten were Red States . [Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners 2003 (November 2004)]

-------* THE TEN STATES WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF EXECUTIONS IN 2004 WERE ALL RED STATES: Texas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Nevada . [Bureau of Justice Statistics. Capital Punishment, 2004 (November 2005)]

-------* The 15 STATES WITH THE HIGHEST RATES OF DEATH BY FIREARMS IN 2003 WERE ALL RED STATES: Alaska , Louisiana, New Mexico, Nevada, Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, Arizona, Arkansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky. [Deaths. Final Date for 2003 National Center For Health Statistics Volume 54, No 13, 2006 ]

-------* OF THE 15 STATES WITH THE HIGHEST RATES OF SUICIDE, 14 OUT OF 15 WERE RED STATES: Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada, Montana, New Mexico, Idaho , Oregon, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona, South Dakota, Kentucky. Note that Oregon was the only blue state. [Deaths. Final Date for 2003, National Center for health statistics. Volume 54. No 13, 2006]

-------* TEN OF THE TOP TEN STATES WITH THE HIGHEST DIVORCE RATES ARE RED STATES: Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Florida. [Division of Vital Statistics. National Center for Health Statistics CDC. 2005 among 45 reported.]

------- * NINE OF THE TEN STATES WITH THE HIGHEST ILLEGITIMACY RATES ARE RED STATES: New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arizona, South Carolina, Florida, Nevada, Georgia, Arizona, and Delaware--again, Delaware being the only blue state. [Births. Final Data for 2003. National Center for Health, Statistics. Volume 54, Nov 2, 2005 ]

-------* 14 OF THE 15 STATES WITH THE HIGHEST OBESITY RATES ARE RED STATES: Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Tennessee,Louisiana, Arizona, Kentucky, Texas, Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Michigan--Michigan being the only blue state. [Behavioral Risk Surveillance System. Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2004 ]

-------* EIGHT OF THE ELEVEN STATES WITH THE HIGHEST GROSSING MARKETS FOR GAMBLING ARE RED STATES: Nevada, Mississippi, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, Iowa, Colorado, South Dakota, New Jersey, Ilinois, and Michigan--New Jersey, Illinois, and Michigan being the only blue states. [United States Gaming Bulletin. Ernst Young 2005. Includes Native American gambling. ]

-------* EIGHT OF THE TEN SMARTEST STATES ARE BLUE STATES: Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maine, Minnesota, Virginia, Wisconsin, New York, and Montana--Montana being the only red state. (On the other hand, the 10 states with the worst paid teachers are all red states. Out of the bottom states, eight out of ten are red states, a situation that might be explained by the fact that blue states place a higher premium on both education and a willingness to pay for education. [From Morgan Quinto Press. Based on 21 factors from its reference book Education State Rankings 2005-2006]

------- All right. Maybe I'm being a little unfair. Instead of looking at the deplorable results that conservative policies have produced in Conservative, Republican states, maybe I should be looking at what faith only religion has done for the individual believer, to the individual conservative politician or preacher. Truly their belief in God, their repeated prayers for redemption have made them better people.

-------Right?

-------Wrong.

-------This is a list of Conservative politicians and preachers who have...Well, just read on. You'll get the idea.

1. Edison Misla Aldarondo: Republican legislator. Sentenced to thirteen years in prison for molestation of a nine-years-old.

2. Randal David Ankeney: Republican activist. Arrested on suspicion of sexual assault on a child with force. He faces six charges related to getting a thirteen- year-old girl stoned, then having sex with her.

3. Merrill Robert Barter: Republican County Commissioner. Pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact & assault on a teenage boy.

4. Robert Bauman: Republican congressman & anti-gay activist. Charged with having sex with a sixteen-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

5. Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to thirty months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

6. Louis Beres: Chairman of the Christian Coalition of Oregon. Three of his family members accuse him of molesting them when they were preteens.

7. Howard L. Brooks: Republican legislative aide and adviser to a California assemblyman. Charged with molesting a twelve-year-old boy & possession of child porn.

8. Andrew Buhr: Republican politician, former committeeman for Hadley Township Missouri, former Tom Delay aide. Charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a thirteen-year-old boy.

9. Born Theodore Robert Cowell , this individual, under the name of Ted Bundy, would become synonymous with the term serial killer. " Bundy worked on the re-election campaign of Washington's Republican Governor Dan Evans. Evans was elected and he appointed Bundy to the Seattle Crime Prevention Advisory Committee. Bundy's political future seemed secure, when in 1973 he became assistant to Ross Davis, chairman of the Washington State Republican Party. It was a good time in Bundy's life. He had a girlfriend, his old girlfriend was once again in love with him, and his footing in the political arena was strong."

10. John Allen Burt: Republican anti-abortion activist. Convicted of sexually molesting a 15-year-old girl at the home for troubled girls that he ran.

11. Keola Childs: Republican county councilman. Pleaded guilty to sexual assault in the first degree for molesting a male child.

12. Kevin Coan: Republican St.Louis Election Board official. Arrested & charged with trying to buy sex from a fourteen-year-old girl whom he met on Internet.

13. Dan Crane: Republican congressman. Married, father of six, received a "100% Morality Rating" from Christian Voice. Had sex with a minor working as a congressional page. On July 20th, the House voted for censure of Crane, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct.

14. Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a fifteen-year-old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women The barrage of Republican public figures having sex with minors is hard to keep track of without a program. Fortunately, The Sappho Manifesto has provided us with a program to keep track of them all.

15. Peter Dibble: Republican legislator. Pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a thirteen- year-old girl.

16. Richard A. Delgaudio: Republican fundraiser and Bush pioneer. Found guilty of child porn charges.

17. Nicholas Elizondo: Director of the Young Republican Federation. Molested his six- year-old daughter & sentenced to six years in prison.

18. Larry Dale Floyd: Republican Constable in Denton County, Texas, Precinct 2. Arrested for allegedly crossing state lines to have sex with an 8 year old child & charged with seven related offences.

19. Jack W. Gardner: Republican councilman. Convicted of molesting a thirteen year old girl, when the Republican party, knowing of these crimes, put him on the ballot.

20. Richard Gardner : Nevada State Representative. Admitted to molesting his two daughters.

21. Matthew Glavin: President & CEO of Southeastern Legal Foundation, big player in Clinton impeachment. Arrested multiple times for public indecency, one time fondling the crotch of the officer who was arresting him.

22. Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing eight-and ten-year old girls.

23. Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a . "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

24. Mark A. Grethen: Republican activist. Convicted of six counts of sex crimes involving children.

25. Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

26. Mark Harris: Republican city councilman who is described as a "church goer". Convicted of repeatedly having sex with an eleven- year-old girl & sentenced to twelve years in prison

27. The Reverend Ted Haggard of the New Life Church, after preaching a message of strict, right wing "morality" and brazen homophobia, was outed in November, 2006 by a male escourt (read male prostitute) with whom he had been sleeping once a month for the better part of three years. In addition Haggard was also accused of using methamphetamine. Haggard subsequently confessed to the allegations

28. Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his twelve-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

29. Howard Scott Heldreth: Anti-abortion activist who gained famed during the Shiavo media-circus. Convicted of two charges of raping a child in 2002.

30. Mike Hintz: First Assembly of God youth pastor, introduced by Bush on the campaign trail & promoted his policies. two months later, this married father of four turned himself into police, charged with sexual exploitation of a child.

31. Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to forty years in prison for molesting an eight-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

32. Paul Ingram: Republican party leader of Turston County, Washington. Pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served fourteen years in federal prison.

33. Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

34. Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

35. Jon Matthews: Republican talk show host in Houston. Indicted for indecency with a child, including exposing his genitals to a girl under age seventeen.

36. Nicholas Morency: Republican anti-abortion activist. Pleaded guilty to possessing child porn on his computer and offering a bounty to anyone who murders am abortion doctor.

37. Jeffery Patti: Republican Committee Chairman. Arrested for distributing what experts call " some of the most offensive material in the child porn world." It was a video clip of a five- year-old girl being raped.

38. Mark Pazuhanich: Republican judge. Pleaded no contest to fondling a ten-year-old girl and sentenced to ten years probation.

39. Dennis Rader, otherwise known as the BTK (Blind, Torture, Kill) Serial Killer was a savage homicidal maniiac who murdered his many victims according to a ritualized script. When he murdered his neighbor Marine Hedge, in 1985, he quite literally took her to the Wichita Christ Lutheran Church and photographed her dead body on the altar. To the outside world, Rader gave all the outward appearances of normalcy. He was a Boy Scout Leader; he was a member of the above mentioned Christ Lutheran Church, and he was a registered Republican. He was also considered a loving father and decent family man who never the less quoted the Bible at his sentencing hearing.

40. Beverly Russell: County Chairman of Christian Coalition. Sexually molested his step-daughter, Susan Smith, who later drowned her two children.

41. Brent K. Schepp, a Republican candidate for the Kane County Illinois Board, who was arrested on charges of child molestation. Then there's 65-year-old Republican Pennsylvania Congressman, Don Sherwood, who was accused by his 29-year-old mistress of repeated instances of physical abuse, including strangulation (by the way Sherwood's campaign held a rally last week hosted by President Bush and Rick "Family Values: Santrorum,* who has also recorded endorsements for the embattled candidate.

42. Larry Jack Schwarz: Republican parole board officer & former Colorado State Representative. Fired after child porn was found in his possession.

43. Tom Shortridge: Republican campaign consultant. Sentenced to three years probation for taking nude pictures of a fifteen- year-old girl.

44. Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a fifteen year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

45. Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

46. David Swartz: Republican County Commissioner. Pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of eleven, sentenced to 8 years in prison.

47. Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a sixteen- year old girl when he was 28.

48. Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

49. Robin Vanerwall: Republican strategist & Citadel Military College graduate, Director of Faith and Family Alliance, member of Ralph Reed's inner circle who funneled money to and from Jack Abromoff to Reed. Convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the Internet.

50. Spokane Mayor Jim West (a conservative Republican who rabidly opposes gay rights and teen sex) was caught in a sting operation by the local newspaper as he was arranging sex with a forensic computer expert – hired by the paper – that he thought was an 18-year- old boy. While technically never convicted of having sex with a minor, there was plenty of evidence that he molested children while he was a scout leader years ago.

51. Keith Westmoreland: Tennessee State Representative. Arrested on seven felony counts of lewd & lascivious exhibition to minors under 16-years-old.

52. Stephen White: Republican preacher. Arrested after allegedly offering $ 20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

----- - To this list I might have added Virginia Senator George Allen, for his history of racism and domestic violence, but to the best of my knowledge Senator Allen is only a bigot, a bully, and a thug, not sexual deviant. And I really don't know what to do about Dennis Hastert because he only covered for online stalker Jim Foley. As far as I know Hastert has not molested nor stalked any minors nor engaged in any sex crimes--only covered them up. On the other hand, I probably should have included terrorist bomber, Eric Rudolph, the homophobic, anti-abortion fanatic who killed two people and wounded 110 others because he had a problem with abortion and "abberant sexual behavior." As if murdering people is the "Christian" alternative.

------- As you can tell, I am hardly surprised by this kind of behavior on the conservative side of the political/religious spectrum. The Republican Party, after all has been hijacked by people who John Dean refers to as "Conservatives Without Conscience." What, you might wonder is a conservative without a conscience? Read on. Dean divides them into two categories: The Social Dominators (or leaders) and the Right Wing Authoritarians (or followers),

-------Social Dominators are typically men. They are dominating, and they oppose equality. They also crave personal power and tend to be amoral. In addition they are also: intimidating, bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, highly prejudiced (racist, sexist, homophobic), mean-spirited, militant, and nationalistic. They tell others what they want to hear, they take advantage of suckers, they create false images to sell themselves, they may or may not be religious, and they are usually politically and economically conservative/Republican. Right Wing Authoritarian Followers, on the other hand, may be men or women. They are submissive to and aggressive on behalf of authority, and are highly conventional. They are also deeply religious (often to the point of fanaticism) and possess moderate to little education. They trust people who should never be trusted and, like their totalitarian masters, they are highly prejudiced (especially against homosexuals, women, and followers of religions which differ from their own). They are also mean-spirited, narrow-minded, intolerant, bullying, zealous, dogmatic, uncritical of authority, hypocritical, inconsistent, contradictory, prone to panic easily, highly self-righteous, moralistic, strict disciplinarians, severely punitive, demanding of loyalty and eager to return loyalty. They tend to possess little in the way of self awareness and they are usually politically and economically conservative. (See John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience pages 68-69, for the source material).

-------The upshot here is obvious. On one hand the pseudo Christians claim to be moral, God-fearing people, but when you look at some of the areas in this country where they have the most influence they are what some of us might refer to as "dens of iniquity." They preach morality and good government on one hand, but when it's all said and done they are little more than authoritarian (some might say totalitarian) leaders and followers who couldn't tell a decent set of morals from an advanced case of genital warts .

-------Their so called Christian values are the same values that one would find among sociopaths and malignant narcissists, people with dangerous, incurable personality disorders. And while we can't send them to the mental hospitals for the criminally insane (which is where a few of them belong) , we can at least remove them from elected positions in the same way that one would remove a cancerous tumor.

-------These people have done enough damage. It's time to bring an end to their irrational reign of terror. Let logic, compassion, and reason flourish once again.

Trevor, Jeffrey, Brandon, Daniel, Kyle and Brian

SOURCES

THE KING JAMES BIBLE: EXTRA LARGE PRINT EDITION
American Bible Society, New York

CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE
Page 63- 64, 68-69
by John Dean
Viking 2006

MEET UP
46 Republican Pedophiles
http://dfa.meetup.com/boards/view/viewthread?thread=2075382

WASH PARK PROJECT
Republican and Religious Right Wing Pedophiles
26 April 2006
posted by Andrew Oh-Willeke
http://dfa.meetup.com/boards /view/viewthread?thread=2075382

ABOUT
Crime / Punishment
Serial Killer Ted Bundy
From Charles Montaldo
http://crime.about.com/od/serial/p/tedbundy.htm

CNN.com / Law Center
Rudolph Reveals Motives
Tesday April 19, 2005
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/13/eric.rudolph/index.html

VANITY FAIR (November Print Edition)
"Red State Babylon"
Page 164
by James Wolcott

DUAL DIAGNOSIS AND THE ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER
March 25, 2000
http://www.toad.net/~arcturus/dd/antisoc.htm

GEORGE BUSH IS A MALIGNANT NARCISSIST
by Paul Levy
2004
http://www.awakeninthedream.com/bushnarc.html

Special Thanks to "Dude" from THE BLUE REPUBLIC for the information about Spokane Mayor Jim West; and to "Jay" from THE BLUE REPUBLIC for his information about Brent K. Schepp. And a big thank you to LEftOfCenter at The Blue Republic for providing us with the wonderful article about Malignant Narcissism

Authors notes by Trevor and Jeffrey

-------In many ways this was a a more difficult project than our recent revision of THE FOURTEEN CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM. We have worked together on projects before, but this is the first time that all five of the founders have worked together on a single project. For the record, Trevor is a dyed in the wool atheist--quite a change from the devout and very conservative Prebyterian that he had once been. Jeffrey has been drifting towards Deism; possibly because his "favorite" Founding Fathers were Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Brandon is a "Secular Buddhist," essentially accepting the moral teachings of the Buddhist faith without the supernatural trappings. Danny is an agnostic, although he may quite possibly swing over to a liberal form of Christianity. Kyle is a "recovering Presbyterian--and if you know what that means you know more than the authors.

------- Oddly enough, we enjoyed every minute of the composition--bringing together the various threads, weaving in past posts, and discovering that the material was more related than we had ever imagined.

-------Will we work like this again? We certainly hope so. Peace to you and yours

-------Trevor and Jeffrey

MOVE ON, MISTER RESIDENT, MOVE ON ALREADY

2007-09-21T10:25:00.001-07:00

MOVE ON MISTER RESIDENT, MOVE ON ALREADY
by UncleAbe and PraetorOne
Edited by BibleBelted

Who in the hell does George W. Bush think he's kidding?   Was it my imagination or did I actually hear the Pretender and Thief shedding more crocodile tears because a liberal organization dared to question the veracity of a general who, for all intents and purposes, is little more than an obedient puppet for an administration that has begun to believe its own lies and half truths? For those of you who missed the president's (20 September 2007) drivel--and you were God-awful lucky if you did--the Demander and Thief had the audacity to criticize the folks at Move On for daring to question a general whose rectum is little more than an opening through which the Bush Administration can insert its hand whenever it needs a ventriloquist's dumbly to defend the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq which has now devolved into a full blown religious civil war.

Oh. I'm sorry.

The Administration doesn't like to call it a religious civil war. That might be too untidy, perhaps a tad too honest.   The current Orwellian doublespeak for what we have created in Iraq is "an ethno-sectarian conflict over power and territory." Or if you will, a religious civil war replete with ethnic cleansing.

But I seem to have digressed. Listening to this President complain because the folks at Move On dared to criticize a doctored report--which by the way was more authored by Bush and Cheney than it was by General Petraeus--is a little like listening to Adolf Hitler deliver a lecture on the evils of violence and antisemitism. Even as Bush delivered his usual half-baked platitudes about insulting the military I couldn't help but think that there's a huge difference between criticizing the Bush/Petraeus report and what George W. Bush has done to our military, and in my humble opinion someone should take this morally deficient president aside and explain that there is a difference between the kind of criticism that we heard from Move On and the kind of Mass Murder that has been committed by the Neocons in the name of oil, money, and empire.

Nearly 4,000 American troops dead. Nearly 21,000 wounded. Thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, maimed, and battle scarred. That is the direct result of the Bush Administration's illegal invasion and occupation. Now you tell me. Which is more damaging? Words which openly question the competency and honesty of an incompetent and dishonest Administration and its all too many Mortimer Snerds, or just condemnation of a domineering president and an acquiescent general who regurgitates the Demander and Thief's rhetoric on demand?

And while we're at it, will someone please tell me just why in the hell our elected officials should take the time to condemn justified political speech?   Granted, Move On was audacious enough to refer to the general as General Betrayus, but let us talk turkey here my friends. The General has betrayed us.   He has betrayed the American people and in refusing to question the congenital malignancy of our sociopathic president; he has betrayed the very troops who he and the Administration so hypocritically claim to support. Moreover I find it interesting that the same party which slimed John Kerry's war record through the Swift Boat Liars association, and which denigrated the reputation of Vietnam Veteran/triple amputee max Cleland should opt to condemn Move On for far less caustic criticism. Did we see a Congressional condemnation of the Swift Boat Liars? No. Did we see a Congressional condemnation of the goons and thugs who compared Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden? No.

But that's what it takes to be a Republican today: duplicity and arrogance.

These people are perfectly willing to condemn minor examples of what they themselves do on a regular basis. Comparing Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden; telling us that you're either with them or with the terrorists: Are these or are these not the same kinds of tactics that were employed by Joe McCarthy during the abominable Red Scare of the 1950s?   You'd think that in the 53 years the Republicans would have learned a few new tricks--or better yet--developed a sense of decency. In 1954 Joe McCarthy accused the United States military of harboring communists. Prior to that he had turned America into the 20th version of 1692 Salem, creating a witch hunt climate in which people were persecuted on the basis of mere suspicion. During that time McCarthy himself played the part of a genuine witch hunter with great enthusiasm, less concerned about uncovering communists than he was in using the publicity and propaganda which stemmed from his own actions to bolster his political career and personal popularity.   In other words, Joe McCarthy was more interested in Joe McCarthy than he was in the protection of his own country. Having unleashed the dogs of persecution in the arts and entertainment community he turned on the churches and finally on the United States military. Does anyone out there remember the statement: "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessnesses...Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?"* Those words were delivered by Boston Attorney Joe Welch and they were heard by millions of Americans during televised Senate hearings. They also brought about the long overdue fall of Senator Joe McCarthy as a political force in this country.

I think it's time that we ask the same question of the Republicans once again. As in the 1950s the right wing witch hunters and McCarthyites have again resorted to sliming those who would ask legitimate questions, to smearing those who would offer justifiable or even constructive criticism. I think we all need to remember that the criticism leveled by Move On was not so directed against the General as it was against the Bush administration for using the General as a front to offer a doctored report which had been manipulated by George W. Bush himself.   We also need to remember that the Administration has created arbitrary standards which are designed to disguise the actually damage which is currently taking place in Iraq. For example. If an Iraqi is shot in the back of the head that counts as a terrorist attack. If an Iraqi is shot in the face that particular attack is counted as a mere murder having nothing to do with terrorism.   It is through tricks, manipulations and machinations such as these that George W. Bush and his War Crime Syndicate have been able to fudge the data and present phony progress reports which are designed to both, the peoples representatives and Senators, and the citizenry itself.

If anything Move On was not harsh enough in its criticism of George W. Bush himself.   Perhaps Move On should have openly stated that George W. Bush has betrayed us. He betrayed us when he manufactured phony evidence during the build up to the war. He and his Neocon cronies betray the troops when they send these battle weary young men and women back to Iraq again, and again, and again for multiple tours of duty without proper rest and relaxation between tours of duty; he betrayed the troops when he sent them into battle without sufficient provisions; he betrays the American people every time he tries to sell out Constitutional protections in favor of security, and God knows that he betrays the people, the Constitution, and the troops when he claims personal and political powers more appropriate to a Francisco Franco or a Benito Mussolini.

In fact...the more that I think about it...George W. Bush is just an ugly betray with a name and a beady-eyed face connected to it

* For a transcript of the Army-McCarthy Hearing please click on the following:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6444
For a general history of the fall of Joe McCarthy please click on
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Have_you_no_sense_of_decency.htm

WITHDRAW TAX FREE STATUS FOR CHURCHES

2007-09-20T13:05:00.001-07:00

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2007/09/19/3

What can I say? It's about time that a church lost its tax free status for sticking its nose into a political issue.

One of the fair trade offs that we make in this society is the practice of allowing religious organizations to "spread the word" and offer humanitarian in a tax free environment as long as they don't use their considerable resources to influence political events. In the case above it seems to me that the Methodist Church in question crossed the line when it decided to wrap itself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy, declaring a political issue a moral issue, and then using its considerable resources to campaign against the civil liberties of gays and lesbians, a group of people which the Methodists clearly love to hate.

As far as I'm concerned the Methodists in question got exactly what they were asking. Now if we would only take the above story as an example and apply it across the board to other churches which use their financial and political power to influence elections and political issues. A good [place to begin would be with the Catholic Church which seems bound and determined to replace American Democracy with a Vatican-based theocracy. Or, perhaps an even better place to begin, would be with some of our loonier, Protestant Fundamentalists who want to turn America into a Reich wing theocracy in which the words, theology, and practices of Jesus Christ are replaced with the words of Jesus Christ and the theology and policies of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

Frankly I'm sick of my tax dollars going to Historical and Constitutional revisionists who seem to think that religious tyranny is better than representative democracy. It's time to hold these people, these groups and organizations accountable. If they're going to undermine the work of the Constitutional Framers then they don't deserve to use our tax dollars to do so.

Peace and Enlightenment always

BRAVERY AND TORTURE: THEN AND NOW

2007-09-19T15:11:00.001-07:00

BRAVERY AND TORTURE:
THEN AND NOW
By PraetorOne and Donatra

Sometimes you just have to wonder where George W. Bush gets his ideas. Shortly after the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the Demander and Thief issued a statement in which he maintained that the oceans no longer provided adequate protection. Well, Mister Bush, we have news for you. If you had studied your American history instead of guzzling booze and snoring illegal substances, you might have learned that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have never offered complete safety.

Need we remind you, Mister Bush, that prior to the American Revolution, the American (then British) colonies took part in the Seven Years War (AKA The French and Indian War) which, for all intents and purposes was nothing more nor less than an 18th Century Global conflict? Need we remind you, Mister Bush that the Atlantic Ocean didn't provide a great deal of protection from English warships during the American Revolution? And do we really have to remind you of the painful and humiliating fact that in 1814, during the War of 1812, British troops actually burned Washington DC?

And it gets even worse. We are all familiar with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but our history books have either forgotten, or deliberately chose to omit, references to Japanese attacks on the American West Coast? No, I am not making this up.

"The attack of June 21, 1942, had been provoked two months earlier, in April, when Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle and his squadron of B-25 bombers attacked Tokyo. The raid, a jab in response to the body blow at Pearl Harbor, infuriated the Japanese. Now the enemy was about to jab back, sending two I-class long-range submarines to harass naval and commercial shipping off the Northwest coast. The I-25, under Commander. Meiji Tagami, had torpedoed a freighter the day before but failed to sink it.

On the evening of June 21, Tagami snuck the I-25 past a minefield under a screen of fishing vessels. He surfaced in the dark, and his crew used its 5.5-inch deck gun to fire toward land. Relying on faulty intelligence, Tagami thought he was dropping shells on an American submarine base. "I did not use any gun sight at all—just shot," he said later.

The resulting explosion roused personnel at Fort Stevens from their weeks of tedious duty and instantly erased their complacency. Searchlights went on, and lookouts spotted the submarine at sea. Senior Duty Officer Robert M. Huston decided not to return fire, since his plotters erroneously gauged the sub to be beyond the range of the fort's main guns and he didn't want to fruitlessly give away his battery positions. His men were frustrated, but the decision was prudent." [1]

Luckily the attack caused little damage, but it does provide an example which undermines the president's half baked theory that the oceans were ever an adequate protection against a determined attacker.

Nor was this the only Japanese attack on the Japanese mainland.

"The Japanese didn't give up. In September the I-25 was back along the Oregon coast, carrying a disassembled seaplane in a pod in front of its conning tower. After being assembled, the plane was catapulted from the ship on the morning of September 9, and the pilot dropped incendiary bombs over the thick Oregon forests, intending to start fires. However, unusually heavy rains had drenched the woods, and the fires were quickly controlled. It was the first aerial bombing of the continental United States by a foreign power." [2]

And there was more to follow.

"Beginning two years later, increasingly desperate Japanese commanders tried yet another tactic. From Japan's home islands they released 33-foot-wide hydrogen balloons calibrated to ascend to 30,000 feet and travel the jet stream all the way across the Pacific. Each balloon was equipped with a small bomb that would drop and detonate automatically when the balloon descended to a certain altitude. Again, the intention was to ignite fires across the Western United States.

A few of the 9,000 balloons released between November 1944 and April 1945 did make it across. Some traveled as far as Wyoming, and one reportedly reached Detroit, but they did little damage. One potentially hazardous attack occurred on March 10, 1945, when a balloon descended near the laboratory in Hanford, Washington, that made plutonium for the Manhattan Project. It knocked out power to the pumps that cooled Hanford's nuclear reactors, but backup power, fortunately, kicked in almost immediately.

The worst incident took place near Bly, Oregon, in May 1945, when the Rev. Archie Mitchell and his wife were taking five Sunday-school children for a picnic in the woods. One of the children found a balloon partly intact. While Mitchell was returning to his car, his wife Elsie and the children hurried to examine the find and were killed when it exploded. They were the only deaths from enemy action on the American mainland during the war." [3]

By now you may be wondering why I a discussing attacks on the American Mainland in a post about bravery and torture. Well, dear readers, I am doing so because it is appropriate to the topic at hand.

It seems to me that the American people have gone through an obvious, and I might add, despicable change in character. If you read the article from which I extracted the above quotes you will note that the government felt that it was in our best interest to keep incidents such as these from the American people in general because it was felt that those incidents might cause a panic among the general population. Today, we have evolved--or should I say devolved to the point where the government (read "the Bush Administration") floods us with misinformation which is specifically designed to frighten and terrorize us. Indeed there are times when one might think that the only secrets this Administration would ever willingly keep quiet are those which involve embarrassing and/or illegal activities. But if it's designed to frighten us, if it's intended to manipulate and cajole us into behaving like frightened children with the primary purpose of making us give up our civil liberties, there isn't anything this Administration won't use to get its way. Whether it's designed to p[lace more power in the hands of our Fuhrer select, or if it's geared to manipulate the American people into approving torture and the undermining of basic Constitutional liberties, there isn't anything this Administration won't do or say to propagandize the American citizenry.

It wasn't always so. While our Executive Sociopath seems to delight in war, death, pain and suffering, our first President, another George had an entirely different attitude towards torture and the treatment of those who fought against the American cause during the War for Independence.

Said Washington:

"Sir: You are intrusted with a Command of the utmost Consequence sequence to the Interest and Liberties of America. Upon your Conduct and Courage and that of the Officers and Soldiers detached on this Expedition, not only the Success of the present Enterprize, and your own Honour, but the Safety and Welfare of the Whole Continent may depend. I charge you, therefore, and the Officers and Soldiers, under your Command, as you value your own Safety and Honour and the Favour and Esteem of your Country, that you consider yourselves, as marching, not through an Enemy's Country; but that of our Friends and Brethren, for such the Inhabitants of Canada, and the Indian Nations have approved themselves in this unhappy Contest between Great Britain and America. That you check by every Motive of Duty and Fear of Punishment, every Attempt to plunder or insult any of the Inhabitants of Canada. Should any American Soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any Canadian or Indian, in his Person or Property, I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary Punishment as the Enormity of the Crime may require. Should it extend to Death itself it will not be disproportional to its Guilt at such a Time and in such a Cause: But I hope and trust, that the brave Men who have voluntarily engaged in this Expedition, will be governed by far different Views. that Order, Discipline and Regularity of Behaviour will be as conspicuous, as their Courage and Valour. I also give it in Charge to you to avoid all Disrespect to or Contempt of the Religion of the Country and its Ceremonies. Prudence, Policy, and a true Christian Spirit, will lead us to look with Compassion upon their Errors without insulting them. While we are contending for our own Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of the Hearts of Men, and to him only in this Case, they are answerable. Upon the whole, Sir, I beg you to inculcate upon the Officers and Soldiers, the Necessity of preserving the strictest Order during their March through Canada; to represent to them the Shame, Disgrace and Ruin to themselves and Country, if they should by their Conduct, turn the Hearts of our Brethren in Canada against us. And on the other Hand, the Honours and Rewards which await them, if by their Prudence and good Behaviour, they conciliate the Affections of the Canadians and Indians, to the great Interests of America, and convert those favorable Dispositions they have shewn into a lasting Union and Affection. Thus wishing you and the Officers and Soldiers under your Command, all Honour, Safety and Success." [4]

That profound statement was issued by George Washington at his Camp at Cambridge on September 14, 1775. Moreover, on Christmas Day, Washington ordered his troops to give refuge to hundreds of surrendering Hessian troops, encouraging his soldiers to "treat them with humanity." [5]

Thomas Paine expressed a similar sentiment when he said:"

"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws." [6]

What can I say? They were good words then and they are good news now. Granted, the 18th Century did not possess the kinds of weapons that we possess today, but let's face the facts. War is hell--at least to a sane person. But who said the key movers and shakers in this Administration were sane? In a single swoop they have managed to undermine the Constitution while making a mockery out of the basic tenants of Western Civilization. Indeed, their attitude seems to suggest that the only way to defeat terrorism (note I did not use the word terror) is to become more brutal and more rapacious than any enemy we can imagine.   One only has to ask oneself, "what would George Washington have thought of rendering? Of Abu Ghraib, of Guantanamo, of rendering individuals to countries that employ torture as a standard method of law enforcement? I think it is safe to assume that Washington, along with Paine, Jefferson, et al would have been disgusted. Disgusted by the Shrub's gleeful attitude towards death and by the manner in which he has used fear, unreasonable terror, on a regular basis to undermine our Constitution in the creation of a unitary executive; or, if you prefer, right wing dictatorship under Bush, Cheney, and the Necons.

You might argue that the British weren't as brutal or as savage as the Taliban and Al Quaida, but as I stated before, the British proved how mild mannered they were in 1914 when they burned down America's Capitol. And let's not forget--ALL wars create their share of atrocities: rape, pillaging, what today we might refer to as war crimes. The primary difference, at least in my opinion, appears to be a change in both, our leaders and in our people. While our more enlightened leaders have encouraged us to be brave, the Bush Administration is determined to make us tremble and cower in fear, to sell our liberties for the illusion of security. That's quite a change from 1814 when Dolly Madison, upon learning that the British were heading for Washington, took up a sword and swore to defend herself against the approaching enemy. That's quite a difference from our war dodging president, who, upon learning we had been attacked by terrorists on 911, went into a state of paralyzing terror in front of a class room full of children. And while George Washington is a study in both, the moral and the courageous, the current George in the white house is a coward who managed to avoid serving his country on several occasions and who views soldiers as disposable cogs in a machine.

As for the people, we have changed too. In the 200 plus years since the American Revolution we have become as complaisant as cows on milking machines. So many of us respond to unreasonable, perhaps even phony, terror alerts, to rhetoric designed to create fear and terror. You have to wonder why. Oh Jeez. I don't know. Could it be--just as a wild guess--the kind of "news" (some might say propaganda) that is repeatedly shoved down our throats by the conservative corporate media?

When the Bush administration decided to launch an illegal invasion based on phony evidence, the print and electronic media in this country, with only a few, independent exceptions, seldom questioned the Administration's facts or motives. As in the previous Gulf War, those individuals who obtained their news from television (FOX in particular) were the least informed among the population. As one channel-surfed the various Network and Cable outlets one couldn't help but wonder if virtually every news outlet on the proverbial boob tube had been purchased overnight by the Bush Administration. The Administration was given carte blanche to spread its propaganda and those who dared to question the validity of his rhetoric or who went to far as to protest against the impending war crimes, were quickly and efficiently marginalized, given only the slightest amount of coverage and often challenged by the so called television journalists who were behaving more like Paul Josef Goebbels than Edward R. Murrow. Truth was a rare commodity. Outright lies were common place.   And that was / is dangerous.

Consider the following quote by Peter Finch (Howard Beale) from Network:

"You people and sixty-two million other Americans are listening to me right now. Because less than three percent of you people read books. Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers. Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now, there is a whole, an entire, generation that never knew anything that didn't come out of this tube. This tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation.   This tube can make or break Presidents, Popes, Prime Ministers. This tube is the most awesome, god-damned propaganda force in the whole godless world and woe to us if it ever falls in the wrong hands...And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most awesome, god-damned propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what shit will be peddled for truth on this network. So you listen to me! Television is not the truth! Television is a god-damned amusement park. Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, story tellers, dancers, singers, sideshow freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom killing business. So if you want the truth, go to your God, go to your gurus, go to yourselves, because that's the only place you're ever gonna find any real truth. But man, you're never gonna get any truth from us.   We'll tell you anything you want to hear. We lie like hell..We'll tell you any shit you want to hear. We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true. Buy you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds--we're all you know. you're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here, You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. in God's name, you people are the real thing, we are the illusion. So turn off your television sets. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off. Turn them off right in the middle of this sentence I am speaking to you now. Turn them off!" [7]

Is it any wonder the American people behaved like trained, Pavlovian dogs? For all intents and purposes our corporate media had entered into a symbiotic relationship with the Bush Administration.   The Administration needed the media to spread its misleading propaganda.   The media didn't want to risk its reputation (read corporate advertisers) by challenging a (then) popular president. Moreover, the media recognized that fear and blood produce both, readers and viewers.   Succinctly stated, the media were perfectly willing to help the president spread his fabrications as long as the media benefited from an increase in advertising, readers, and viewers.   We needn't wonder why the American aren't as courageous as they once were. Both, the media and the politicians have learned to play us like finely tuned violins.    How can you produce a populace which asks questions and refuses to be intimidated when the media and our political leaders are bound and determined to keep us in a perpetual state of fear? How can we expect to live in a vibrant, democratic Republic with a respect for constitutional values when constitutional freedoms and liberties are routinely touted as threats to our very existence?

In a very real sense, PraetorOne deals with this issue on a daily basis. He was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes when he was a child. He's been testing his blood sugar and giving himself insulin injections ever since.   For those of you who aren't familiar with Type 1 Diabetes, it is a condition in which, for reasons unknown, the immune system attacks the insulin producing cells in the pancreas. As a result Praetor tests himself and takes regular doses of insulin as often as six times a day. Does he allow this condition to frighten him? No. Does he allow his condition to control his life? Of course not. He does what he has to do. He follows his doctor's instructions. He watches his diet. He exercises on a regular basis. He does what he has to but he doesn't allow the diabetes to control his life.

Sadly the American people have developed a kind sociological diabetes. We're afraid of everything, and it serves our media and our politicians well. We don't only take the practical steps required to survive. We panic. We stop living. We give up civil liberties in exchange for liberty. We refuse to investigate, to challenge what our leaders tell us. We are content to allow our politicians, our televisions, our websites, and our books, magazines, and newspapers to do our thinking for us.   Couching this in terms of diabetes, that isn't taking the proper precautions. That's locking yourself in your house, over-medicating, and starving yourself to death because you're afraid your diabetes will kill you!

In a quote often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, we are told that a nation which gives up freedom for security will lose both and deserves neither. [8] By the same token, Thomas Jefferson told us that you cannot sustain a democratic (small "d") form of government without an enlightened and educated citizenry. [9]

They were good axioms to live by then and they are good axioms to live by today.   What else can one add, except perhaps that George Washington was a better roll model than George W. Bush?

SOURCES

[1] From American Heritage.com
Forgotten but True: Japan Attacks American Mainland
by Jack Kelly
June 21, 2007
Today's date: 14 September 2007
Copyright 2006 by American Heritage
http://www.americanheritage.com/places/articles/web/20070621-oregon-fort-stevens-world-war-II-I-25-submarine-fire-balloons-doolittle-raid.shtml

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] From NION: Never in Our Names
More on the George Washington Quote
by Mister Helper
February 23 2007
Today's date, 14 September 2007
http://www.neverinournames.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=956

[5] NPR LEGAL AFFAIRS

Will Terrorism Rewrite the Laws on War?

by Alex Markels
September 7, 2007
Today's date, 14 September2007
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5011464

[6] From Quotes I Found and Liked
Posted by Ritchie on July 31, 2007
Today's date, 14 September 2007
http://quotesquotes.blogspot.com/

[7[ From Greatest Films
Network (1976)
Review by Tim Dirks
Created in 1996-2007
Copyright by Tim Dirks
Today's date, 18 September 2007
http://www.filmsite.org/netw2.html

[8] From Helium: Where Knowledge Rules
Will Our Society Be Safer With Decreased Liberties?
By Dean Schutt
Copyright 2007 by Helium
http://www.helium.com/tm/235175/little-securitythey-essential-liberty
Today's Date: 18 September 2007

[9] From Running on Empty
Thomas Jefferson's "Informed Citizenry"
Posted by Philip Waring
August 26, 2006
http://www.philipwaring.us/running_on_empty/2006/08/thomas_jefferso.html
Today's date, 18 September 2007

Noli nothis permittere te terere
Jolan Tru
PraetorOne and Donatra

THEY KEEP DEMANDING MORE

2007-09-06T11:34:00.001-07:00

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259406.htm

When I was a kid the Christian Right used to swear that it would be happy with a moment of silence in our public schools. Then they wanted student led prayer. Then they wanted prayers led by teachers.

When I was a kid the Christian right used to swear that it was primarily interested in stopping abortion, contraption seldom coming into the discussion. Then they wanted to eliminate certain kinds of contraception because they believed those forms of contraception destroyed life at the moment of conception. Now the truth has finally come out. They want to eliminate contraception all together and force their sexual mores onto the entire population, namely celibate lifestyles until marriage.

This, of course is just another stab at an establishment of religion. In a Christian Republic, or a theocracy if you will, the schools would be geared up to spread the Christian faith. So of course they're going to take what they can get piece by incremental piece. In a Fundamentalist Theocracy, gays and lesbians would become second class citizens--if not subjects of public execution--so of course the Fundamentalist have to begin by denying gays and lesbians employment, marriage, and adoption rights. In a Fundamentalist theocracy women would be subservient to men, and to achieve that end the Fundamentalists want to take away a woman's right to control her own body and destiny. They began with abortion. They they expanded their demands to include certain forms of contraception. Then they revealed their true colors, exclaimed that God wants us to live celibate lives until marriage, when in fact what they really mean, is "honey, back to the bad old days of knocked up, barefoot, and no control over your own body and destiny." The fitly Fundamentalist bastards know that they can't effect an outright theocracy all at once because that really would violate the Constitution, so what they're trying to impose the various beliefs of their Fundamentalist "Christianity" piecemeal on a nation of approximately 300 million people. To which I ask, why should a maximum of 28 percent of the American people, of a particular group of one particular faith be allowed to impose ANY of its values on the nation as a whole?

If they want to pray (some might say that they prey) let them do so in designated times and places as other extracurricular groups are required to do. If they don't ant to use contraception they should get out their thermometers and hope to God the damned thing is properly calibrated. If they want to be celibate they themselves know what is best for them and how they can best maintain their celibate lifestyles until marriage. If they are offended by homosexuality they can stop snooping n what their gay or lesbian neighbors are doing and not engage in homosexual acts. In other words, it's about time that these Pecksniffian Puritans began to mind their own business and removed the motes from their own eyes.

Because I for one, am getting a little sick and tired of being told how to live, think, and behave by a vocal minority with the fanaticism of a Reverend Jim Jones and the collective IQ of a used condom.

CAL=HERBERT=BUSH: Sources

2007-09-01T13:58:00.001-07:00

SOURCES FOR CAL=HERBERT=BUSH\

[1] In the Time of Silent Cal
by Jules Abels
Page 229
Published by GP Putnam's Sons
Copyright Jules Abel 1969

[2[ Ibid
pages 231-233

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid
Page 238

[6] An American History, 4th Edition
by Rebecca Brooks Gruver
Page721
Published by Alfred A Knopf, NY
Copyright by Newbery Award Records Inc

[7] In the Times of Silent Cal
Jules Abels
page 241
Published by GP Putnam's Sons
Copyright by Jules Abels 1969

[8] The Growth of the American Republic Volume II
50th Anniversary Edition
by Samuel Eliot Morrison, Henry Steel Commager, and William E. Leuchtenburg
page470
Published by Oxford University Press
Copyright 1980 by Oxford University Press

[9] In the Time of Silent Cal
by Jules Abels
page 262
Published by G.P. Putnam's Sons
Copyright by Jules Abels 1969

[10] Gusmorino, Paul A. III Main Causes of the Great Depression
Gusmorino World (May 13, 1996) Online, Internet
http:''www.gusmorino.com/pag3/great_depression/index.html
September 1, 2007

[11] Ibid

[12] Who Rules America?
Power In America
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
September 2005 (updated December 2006)

[13] Gusmorino, Paul A., III. "Main Causes of the Great Depression."
Gusmorino World (May 13, 1996).
Online. Internet:
http://www.gusmorino.com/pag3/great_depression/index.html .

[14] 1776-1975 American History Guidebook; Bicentennial Edition
page 431
originally Published as Webster's Guide to American History,
Copyright 1971 by Encyclopedia Britannica
Republished with additional material in 1975
by Bobley Publishing Corporation
Copyright 1975 by Bobley Publishing Company

[15] The Bicentennial Almanac
page 318
Calvin D. Linton, PhD editor in chief
Published by Thomas Nelson Inc Publishers
Copyright 1975 by Thomas Nelson Inc

[16] The History of Wisconsin Volume V
War, a New Era, and Depression, 1914-1940
pages 254-355
Paul W. Glad
Published and Copyright by State historical Society of Wisconsin

[17] An American History 4th Edition
Rebecca Brooks Gruver
Published by Alfred a Knopf, NY
copyright 1985 by Newbery Award Records Inc

[18] The Growth of the American Republic Volume II
50th Anniversary Edition
page 472
by Samuel Eliot Morrison, Henry Steel Commager, and William E. Leuchtenburg
Published by Oxford Press
Copyright 1980 by Oxford University Press

[19] The History of Wisconsin Volume V
War, a New Era, and Depression, 1914-1940
by Paul W. Glad
Page 735-736
Copyright and Published by The State Historical Society of Wisconsin

[20] The Oxford History of the American People
by Samuel Eliot Morrison
Published by Oxford University Press
Copyright 1965 by Samuel Eliot Morison

[21] The Growth of the American Republic Volume II
50th Anniversary Edition
page 473
Samuel Eliot Morrison, Henry Steel Commager, and William E. Leuchtenburg
Published by Oxford University Press
Copyright 1980 by Oxford University Press

[22] An American History 4th Edition
Rebecca Brooks Gruver
page 723
Published by Alfed A. Knopf, NY
Copyright by Newbery Award Records Inc

[23] Ibid
Page 726

CAL=HERBERT=BUSH: Part IV

2007-09-01T13:57:00.001-07:00

CAL=HERBERT=BUSH
MORE REMINISCING ABOUT THE 1920s and 1930s
Part IV
They Really DON'T Give A Damn!

One of the primary symbols of this compassionate conservatism was the Hooverville. With two million homeless people, families had to live somewhere, and all too often the only source of shelter was a flimsy, hastily improvised structure made out of readily available components: empty packing cases, old car bodies, tar paper, etc. Groups of families often congregated near railroad embankments, on unoccupied land, beside garbage incinerators, in city dumps, etc. And in some cases those who found themselves in a Hooverville were actually more fortunate when compared to others. No, this it not Kelli doing her imitation of Barbara Bush on homeless people in a sports stadium. People, families, often found themselves huddling together to keep warm in doorways, or under bridges, or in alleys, ad infinitum. [21]

Predictably enough, the Hoover response was a nonresponse. Terrified by the idea of general relief programs, the vast majority of legislation passed during the Hoover Administration was geared to assist big business, a practice which Abe finds surreal. "Have you ever noticed," Abe chuckled, "that whenever corporations get federal assistance--either in the form of tac cuts or out state and/or federal handouts--that it's for the benefit of the entire country, a good investment. But when we help the individual citizen with a social program it's a part of a communist plot? Now isn't that just amazing?" Amazing, but true. The Home Loan Act of 1932 created special banks which extended emergency credit to people golding private mortgages on private homes. It was one of the few programs designed to help individuals. But the 1932 Glass-Steagall Act provided $1 billion in gold so that banks could compensate for foreign withdrawals. The January 1932 Reconstruction Finance Corporation provided cash to sinking industries. The RFC, for all intents and purposes, was little more than a loan institution designed to serve banks, railroad companies, building and loan associations, insurance companies,and trust funds. It came with capital of $500 million and was given the authority to borrow an additional $1.5 billion. True, it loaned out billions of dollars to ailing industries, but true to Hoover;s form, it ignored farmers and small business. [22]

The only time when Hoover showed anything even resembling actual initiative, merely cost him more brownie points with the American people. I am of course talking about the repulsive chain of event associated with the 1932 Bonus March and the appropriately named Bonus Army.

In the spring of 1932, approximately 15,000 to 17,000 World War I veterans, accompanied by their wives and children, congregated in Washington DC at the Capitol to lobby fpr a bill that would have given them their service bonuses which weren't due until 1945. The Republican-controlled Senate, however, promptly ignored the Bonus March and the veterans, and defeated the bill.   Most of the veterans merely gave up and returned to their homes, but approximately two thousand with no form of employment took refuge near the capitol in deserted buildings and shanties/ Hoover was both embarrassed and frightened by the veterans, concerned that their mere presence might result in social unrest. In the meantime the Congress passed a bill which would have allowed the veterans to borrow against their service bonuses. (Even at this stage the GOP dominated senate saw borrowing as a viable option, even after the Crash in October of 1929!), but the veterans refused the offer and opted to stay right where they were. In July the police were called in to remove the veterans but a skirmish resulted and Hoover finally lost patience. Hoover called in the United States Army (under the command of General Douglas MacArthur). No shots were fired, but the veterans were driven out with tanks and tear gas; their shanties were burned. Later Hoover insisted that the Bonus Army had been infiltrated by Communists, that it was a "polyglot of tramps and hoodlums." [23]

"I'd say that both Bush and Hoover were genuine ingrates when it came to war Veterans." According to Abe, Hoover's contempt for those who had served bravely during World War I was a mere prelude to the all too despicable manner in which the current Administration treats returning veterans from the invasion and occupation of Iraq. "Hoover was operating under a misguided ideology of small government and a fear of socialism. But Bush, who managed to avoid actual service in a war theater, seems to hate the vets that he sent to war in the first place. Walter Reed, forcing physically and psychologically wounded soldiers to serve multiple tours of duty. In this respect Bush has actually found a way to out Hoover Hoover."

In conclusion, my coauthors and I would like to follow the following observations. In so many ways the Bush administration is little more than an exaggerated, if not hyperactive replay of the 1920s. On the one hand the powers tat be talk about morality and decency, defining that morality in terms of bigotry against minorities and the gay/lesbian community and an almost obsessive desire to hoard money without any regard for concepts such as fair play and honesty.   They talk about freedom and liberty, and they quote scripture, but they have no problem when it comes to persecuting gays, lesbians, and minorities and they certainly don't mind thumping the Bible when they use federal tax policy and program cuts to benefit the wealthy and persecute the poor.

Like the Administrations of the 1920s we find ourselves in an administration which talks about morals and ethics but which ignores or even engages in criminal activity on a regular basis. Indeed, in this regard, the Bush Administration resembles the scandal ridden Harding administration, and like Harding, Bush is clearly unfit for the job; the only difference being that Harding, despite his hard drinking, gambling, and overall corruption, at least had the honest to admit that he was intellectually unfit for the job. On the one hand we have a religious revival. And, as in the 1920s, we see a rash of scandals emanating from the Administration itself. The powers that be claim to love and adore Jesus, but we all know that if they were to be honest about their motives and intentions they would change the "In God We Trust" on our coins and currency to "In Gold We Trust."

During the 1920s the American people were burdened with debt because they incessantly bought on credit. Despite a phony patina of Christian spirituality the basic philosophy of the 1920s was the same philosophy, or rather attitude problem(s) that we see in society today: the belief that we have to keep up with the Joneses to maintain our worth as human beings, that we are defined by the things we can afford to buy or charge. Then, like today we are burdened with debt. few of us believe that we need to save for that proverbial rainy day. Whether it was buying on margin or buying a house with a variable mortgage, the fact remains that people in the year 2007, like people in 1929, find themselves in a state of financial risk.

And now the bad news. As we stated in a previous series, the Bush Administration has been steadily removing the protections that FDR and the Democratic Party implemented to both, protect workers, and to prevent another Stock Market Crash and Depression.   We would do well to remember that prior to Roosevelt's reforms Depressions in the economy were expected. We even had a name for it. We called it the business cycle, and until the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression we gave little thought to the lower classes who invariably suffered the most. And now the worst news of all. Each of those depressions during the so called business cycle was worse than the one preceding it.   Do we really want to risk a crash followed by a Depression that might be worse than the one our grandparents and great grand-parents experienced during the 1920s and 1930s?

Somehow I don't think so.

Donatra
Uncle Abe
Praetor One
Bible Belted
Doctor Who
Thomas Paine

September , 2007

CAL=HERBERT=BUSH: Part III

2007-09-01T13:56:00.001-07:00

CAL=HERBERT=BUSH
MORE REMINISCING ABOUT THE 1920s and 1930s
PART III
HOOVER AND HIS CREW IN DENIAL

"When the war closed the most vital of all issues, both in our own country and throughout the world, was whether governments should continue their wartime ownership and operation of many instrumentalities of production and distribution. We were challenged with a peacetime choice between between the American system of rugged individualism and a European philosophy of dramatically of dramatically opposed doctrines--doctrines pf paternalism and state socialism. The acceptance of these ideas would have meant the destruction of self-government through centralization of government. It would have meant the undermining of individual initiative and enterprise through which our people have grown to unparalleled greatness.

"The Republican Party from the beginning resolutely turned its face away from these ideas and these war practices.

"By adherences to the principles of decentralized self-government, ordered liberty, equal opportunity, and freedom to the individual, our American experiment in human welfare has yielded a degree of well-being unparalleled in all the world. It has come nearer to the abolition of poverty, to the abolition of fear of want, than humanity has ever reached before. Progress of the past seven years is proof of it. This alone furnishes the answer to our opponents who ask us ti introduce destructive elements into the system by which this has been accomplished."

From a speech given by Herbert Hoover in New York City in 1928. [14]

In September, 1929 the Stock Market revealed definite signs of instability. On the morning of 24 October, prices began to plunge downward. by 11:30 A.M. a general climate of panic had set in as more and larger blocks of stocks were thrown on the market. Sales were taking place at such an accelerated rate that the ticker tape, which reported on prices outside the Exchange, began to fall increasingly behind. In an attempt to counter the wave of panic selling, a group of investment bankers meeting at J.P. Morgan purchased millions of dollars worth of key stocks, eventually stemming the tide and stabilizing prices. The next day stability continued on the Stock Exchange. But three days later, on 28 October, 1929, a new wave of panic selling struck the Exchange. This time the investment bankers made no attempt to stem the tide. The next day, 29 October, 1929. saw an increase in panic selling. This time the ticker tape ran two and a half hours behind. When the day was through, 16,410,030 shares had been sold (A record at that particular time); but more importantly, there had been a total loss in value of 880 issues which the New York Times estimated at more than $800,000,000. Thousands of investors lost their shirts. This however did not concern Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, who maintained that the crash was only a temporary illness, that it would soon runt its course. Refusing to accept the fact that the crash was an economic debacle, members of the Hoover Administration insisted that the crash was little more than a correction that would soon remedy itself without any serious governmental intervention. [15]

The very conservative print media of the era often agreed. Here in Wisconsin (as in other states) various media outlets had a difficult time grasping the serious nature of the crash and certainly did not anticipate what would follow. Wisconsin newspaper editors frequently repeated government officials and the delusional optimists on Wall Street who were in a deep state of denial. The LaCrosse Tribune argued that the crash had been a psychological event and that there was no economic justification for "either a business panic or a business depression." That same paper went so far as to argue that the economy stood a great deal to gain from the crash, because the crash might actually lead to "sound industrial and commercial development." Another paper, the Beloit Daily News, assumed that the decline in stocks might actually stimulate the economy while other publications were fanatical in their support of Hoover era Robber Barons, going so far as to blame small investors, insisting that the small investor had been "reprehensible" for getting into the market in the first place and equally reprehensible for waiting to get out. Only a few Wisconsin publications had the audacity to suggest that the rich should also have been condemned for the same practices. [16]

"Ah yes," Abe sighed. "The bended knee of the right wing media. Is this not what we see today with the corporate media? Is this not what we saw during the run up to the war? A very acquiescent media which openly and blindly accepts what right wing 'experts' spew as the truth? A corporate media that refuses to ask questions or to push back against dishonest rhetoric from corporate and political spokes persons? "
Attitudes such as the ones above were short-lived, however. As the ensuing Depression widened and deepened it quickly became obvious that the crash had been a a lot more than a brief illness or a slight correction, and virtually no one believed that the crash would provide a stimulus for the ailing economy. How bad was it? Consider the following statistics.

* From 1929 to 1932, national income dropped from $87 billion to $42 billion.

* From 1929 to 1933 more than 100,000 businesses failed.

*In 1932 approximately 25 percent of thr working population was unemployed. Unemployment tose from 7 million in the fall of 1931 to 12.6 million in the spring of 1933.

*Private charities ran out of money in 1930

*By 1932 local government relief efforts were over extended. By late 1932 New York City's poor drew $2.39 in weekly support. In Toledo, Ohio, the poor only received two cents a day for food. Across the country, unemployed minorities were often removed from the roles to better serve unemployed white males. [17[

*As many as two million homeless were wandering the country by the summer of 1932. Of these, the Children's Bureau estimated that 200,000 were young boys or girls. In 1932 the Southern Pacific (Railroad) ejected 683,000 trespassers, mostly young men from 16 to 25. [18]

*Personal consumption of durable goods dropped from $9.2 billion in 1929 to $3.5 billion in 1933.

*Domestic investment in producers' durable equipment dropped from $6.9 billion to $1.6 billion.

*Investment in residential non farm construction dropped from $3.6 billion to $0.5 billion.

*GNP dropped from $104.4 billion in 1929 to $56 billion. [19]

And yet the Hoover Administration, especially Secretary Mellon, was unable to comprehend the devastating nature of the Depression. Hoer continued to issue meaningless, indeed, irrational, platitudes about imminent recovery. "Any lack of confidence in... the basic strength of business...is foolishness." "We have now passed through the words. "Business and industry have turned the corner." Mellon was even more delusional, if not heartless. "People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from the less competent people." Even Secretary of Labor, James J. Davis, got in on the act. "Courage and resource are already swinging us back on the road to recovery. And we are fortunate in having a president who is a shining example of that courage and initiative. " [20]

To which Abe responded, "I think that would qualify as 'compassionate conservatism of the late 1920s. Let us remember, Abe continues, "that 'W', like Mellon, is a fanatical believer in small government--at least wen it comes to using the power of the federal government to help the lower classes. Bush in this regard, is a great deal more like Mellon than Hoover. Bush, like Mellon, came from an extremely privileged background. Both were. or are, dyed in the wool class warriors who see or saw poor people as little more than animals. Did you catch the line where Mellon talks about the Depression creating people--people meaning the lower and middle classes--with better morals? Do you remember the shrub's line about how all poor people aren't killers? Both lines reveal a basic contempt for people who these elitist class warriors consider inferior, below them. And while we're on the subject, is there any real difference between Mellon's attitude towards the victims of the Great Depression and the Hundfott's attitude towards the victims of hurricane Katrina? Again, I say, these are both examples of 'compassionate conservatism.' An oxymoron if ever there was one."

CAL=HERBERT=BUSH: Part II

2007-09-01T12:38:00.001-07:00

CAL = HERBERT = BUSH
MORE REMINISCING ABOUT THE 1920s and 1930s PART II WEAKNESSES IN THE COOLIDGE/HOOVER ECONOMIES

Despite the outward appearances of strength, the truth of the matter is that the economy of the 1920s was built on shifting sand. Yes, workers were enjoying relatively good wages, but there were weaknesses underlying the entire system. The rural economy had been in a shambles for years, the direct result of over production and a federal government which refused to step in and offer governmental assistance. Instead of intervening to undermine the glut of agricultural products that were pushing rural incomes downward, both Coolidge and Hoover stuck to their small government obsession,and allowed the situation to worsen. The results were ironic. In the rural community there was a glut of food products, while in urban environments there was a shortage of food, especially after the Stock Market crashed and the Great Depressio began to spread and deepen. At no time did it occur to President Hoover to use the excess in agricultural products to feed city dwellers. Nor did he endorse the idea of taking acreage out production by paying farmers subsidies not to plant certain crops. Nor was there a willingness to destroy various agricultural products to help drive up the prices of those products, thus creating higher incomes for the suffering American farmer.

A similar condition existed in the automobile industry, where a glut of cars had been produced by the late 1920s, essentially driving down prices and profits which had a direct effect upon the American auto manufacturer, the average American worker.

Despite a plethora of medical advances ( the advent vitamins, advances in chemistry,dietary reforms, and early successes with antibiotics) the typical American was not in the best of health. Norway and Sweden enjoyed lower rates of infant mortality. A disproportionate number of American citizens suffered from ailments associated with poverty, such as bad teeth, poor eyesight, and malnutrition. That said a lot abut a capitalist society which had been touted as a kind of economic Nirvana. [8]

Unemployment rates had begun to rise in the years prior to the crash, especially in the area of residential construction. In the bituminous coal industry, 250,000 men lost their jobs when mines began to close between the years 1923 and 1929. The anthracite coal industry was on the ropes thanks in large part to the rising competition from oil heating. Similarly, the Northern Textile mill had been in a state of decay for years. Retail growth was dropping off. In the midst of this supposed boom six out of ten families were earning less than the required $2000 per year to provide the basic necessities of life. [9]
But the greatest weakness in the Coolidge/Hoover economy was the disproportionate distribution of wealth, which dramatically favored the upper classes. From 1923 to 1929 the nation's total realized income rose from $74.3 billion to $89 billion in 1929. The fruits of that increase however were not equally shared. In 1929 the top 0.1 percent of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42 percent. That same top 0.1 percent of Americans controlled 34 percent of all savings while 80 percent of Americans had no savings at all. While disposable income per capita rose nine percent from 1920 to 1929. those within the top one percent enjoyed a stupendous 75 percent increase in per capita disposable income [10]. Thanks in large part to Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, national tax policy contributed to the disparity in wealth. The February 26, 1926 Revenue Act reduced federal income and inheritance taxes. The end result was that "a man with a million dollar annual income had his federal taxes reduced from $600,000 to $200,000. Even the Supreme Court played a role in expanding the gap...In the 1923 case Adkins V. Children's Hospital, the Supreme Court ruled minimum wage legislation unconstitutional [11].

So why was that a problem? The answer is obvious. It creates an unstable economy. Over production had already created a glut of unwanted goods and commodities. Now consider the following scenario. Assume that you earn $30,000 a year and that I earn $150,000 a year. That means that I earn fifty times a year more than you do. I might decide to buy a few luxury items that you can't afford to buy, but an economy cannot be sustained on the purchase of luxury items by the wealthy. I can't eat fifty times more food than you do. Nor is it likely that I will purchase fifty DVD players, fifty cars, fifty toasters, fifty digital TVs or fifty microwave ovens. Translated into modern English a thriving economy needs a more even distribution of wealth and income to sustain itself. Granted, I maybe eating for two these days, but let's get real friends and neighbors, I'm not going to buy and gobble down fifty Tombstone pizzas every week. It simply isn't possible.

"We see a similar situation in today's economy," Abe reminded me. "I believe the top 20 percent (of the American people) own somewhere around 80 percent of the wealth. At the same time the bottom 80 percent (of the American people) own about 20 percent of the privately owned wealth." Upon double checking Abe's recollections, I discovered that the situation is actually somewhat worse than he suggested. In the year 2001, the top one percent of American households, those that we would think of as the upper class, had somehow managed to hoard a disproportionate 33.4 percent of the privately owned wealth. The next 19 percent, which includes small businessmen, professionals, and the managerial class had grabbed up another 51 percent of the wealth. This means that the richest 20 percent had managed to acquire a walloping 80 percent of the wealth while the bottom 80 percent were left to fight over a measly 16 percent of the private wealth. As far as financial wealth is concerned, the top once percent of American households own 44.1 percent of the privately held stock, 38 percent of the financial securities, and 57.3 percent of business equity. The top ten percent of American households own between 85 and 90 percent of stock bonds, trust funds, and business equity and more than 75 percent of non-home real estate. [12]

And yet, the Coolidge Hoover economies did manage to sustain themselves, albeit temporarily. But how did they do it? Through luxury spending and investment from the rich and, worse yet, from credit sales. According to Mister Gusmorino, the idea of credit spending, "buying now and paying later," caught on quickly. "Between 1925 and 1929," says Gusmorino, "the total amount of outstanding installment credit more than doubled from $1.38 billion to around $3 billion. Installment credit allowed one to 'telescope the future into the present.'" [13] This sounded good to the American consumer, but eventually there came a time when there was little more that the American people needed and/or wanted to buy. Moreover, many Americans overextended themselves, reached the point where they could no longer afford to purchase new items because a larger portion of their incomes were being used to pay off the credit expenses associated with previous purchases.

"Isn't this the same thing that the pirate capitalists are encouraging today?" Abe asked me. "Do we not have an economy in which the average American is up to his ears in credit card debt? And what do you think would happen if we suddenly pulled in our belts and stopped shopping? What do you think would happen if we stopped buying truck loads of items that we can neither afford nor really need? I'll tel you what would happen. The (Bush) economy would collapse. It's so damned dependent upon shopping--consumerism if you will--that the bottom would drop out if Americans ever became serious about cutting back and saving for a rainy day." Continuing in a similar vein, Abe added. "We talked about how people once bought stocks on margin. Putting aside our discussion about credit cards and consumerism...we're doing the same thing in the real estate and housing markets today. Only we don't call it 'buying on margin.' We call it the 'sub prime lending rate.' Once again we have a greedy credit community, and once again it has been backed by a an incompetent Republican Administration. George W. Bush calls it the ownership society. I'm really shocked by the fact that he didn't also promise us a 'car in every garage and a chicken in every pot.' We heard it all before, a right wing government using rhetoric and policies to to allow legalized loan sharking. George W. Bush may call it the 'ownership society,' but whatever Orwellian name you opt to use, it is actually encouraging people to purchase or build houses that they simply cannot afford. What else can you call it when the creditors decide to raise interest rates and drive unsuspecting Americans out of their homes? Some may think of this as 'good business' or 'good politics' or maybe both, but when I was growing up during the Great Depression we called it loan sharking."

Both Abe and Mr. Gusmorino, and many others, agree that you can't sustain an economy based on investment from the rich. Depending on the wealthy to float your economy makes a certain degree of sense when conditions produce a certain degree of confidence in that economy; but an event like the Stock Market Crash of 1929 shook public confidence and for all intents and purposes, destroyed one of the legs on which the Coolidge/Hoover pipe dream had been supported.

Eventually over-production, loose credit, a maldistribution of wealth and countless other factors brought an end to the wild orgie of stock purchases.

The Stage had been set for the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.

CAL=HERBERT=BUSH: PART 1

2007-09-01T12:33:00.001-07:00

CAL = HERBERT = BUSH
MORE REMINISCING ABOUT THE 1920s AND 1930s
PART I
Dirty Tricks and Corruption During the 1920s
by Donatra, Praetor One, Bible-Belted, Uncle Abe, and Thomas Paine.

As a direct result of my recent conversation with Abe regarding the differences between George W. Bush and Franklin Roosevelt, I realized that we had enough material to compare the current Demander and Thief to another group of Demanders and Thieves, the late, unlamented Calvin Coolidge and the late not so great Herbert Hoover.

As I listened to Abe reminisce about his experiences during the final years of the 1920s and the opening years of the 1930s, I realized that there were more similarities between those horrible, horrible years and the current situation in which we now find ourselves. Let's face it, dear readers. The opening years of the 21st century are a replay of the disastrous 1920s, and the sad part of it all is that we are living under the reign of an administration which either ignores the lessons of history or openly rewrites or ignores the historical record to serve it's own, selfish agenda.

"We've seen it all before," Abe said, his tone laced with a lingering disgust. "The heavy emphasis on big business, the transformation of corporate America into an object of public worship." According to Abe the Coolidge and Hoover Administrations both took their reverence for corporation to ridicules heights. "Time and time again the Republicans tried to associate the word spiritual with American business. Coolidge himself believed that a man who built a factory was building a temple and that the people who worker there were in essence engaging in a form of worship." Moreover Coolidge and his Republican ilk also believed that American business should be allowed to serve as a moral example to the rest of America. "Some went so far as to compare Jesus Christ to a corporate executive. They genuinely believed that he was a great advertiser, a corporate publicity hound, who employed the tactics of mass marketing to spread his message. And if that sounds familiar it should. We've heard it before. We heard it during the Gilded Age, one of the most corrupt eras in American business and politics, and we are hearing it now, as so called conservatives sing the praises of unregulated capitalism at the expense of anything that might serve the public good." [1]

The 1920s, like the early years of this century, were moralistic in the extreme. The only problem was that the same businessmen who promoted American Corporatism as a form of religion never quite found a way to infuse their money-grubbing religion with a sense of morality. Indeed, when one looked at the business practices of the 1920s it appeared as if there were a race to the moral bottom among the corporate and financial leaders who preached that foul doctrine.

Inside manipulation of the stock market was a tremendous problem. Insiders would hire professional propagandists to promote a stock. Their job was to publish glowing reports about a given company, the ultimate goal being to drive up the value of the stock. At which point the insiders sold out, driving down the price of the stock and often destroying the company and the finances of unknowing investors. This is what happened to the Kolster Radio Company. It hired a professional propagandist named George Breen and offered him stock options. Kolster received about $40,000 to manipulate the media into printing favorable reports about his employer. And it worked. The price of Kolster stock rose from $74 (in 1928) to $95 per share (in 1929). By December 1929 the value of Kolster stock had dropped to $6 a share and the company bellied up. [2]

Another trick was called "pegging." This was the purchasing of stock while a sale was going on. The only problem was that the public was never informed about the sale.. Once the securities had been unloaded the insiders would essentially pull the plug, dump the stocks on the market, and the value of the stock would plummet. It was a great deal for the insiders who knew when to sell but a disaster for the uninformed public who lost their shirts when the value of the stock went into a free fall." [3]

On other occasions manipulators, insiders, would form a self-serving pool and then drive up the price of the stock by buying and selling those stocks to one another. Then, once they had driven the stock up to a level that they considered appropriate they would turn around and sell short, and make another fortune while the stock value hit rock bottom. This of course was a disaster for the regular investor who had no idea as to how the stock was being manipulated by insiders, and who assumed incorrectly that they were investing in an honest venture. This happened to RCA. In 1924 RCA stock was worth approximately $7 a share. By 1929 it was worth more than $500 a share. Then, "The Powers That Be," the insiders,noticed that some investors had decided that the stock was overvalued and began to sell short. In the end those who sold short lost out because the insiders decided it would be a 'really neat idea' to corner the floating supply. The end result was that those who had sold short were left holding the bag. In 1928 RCA stock jumped by as much as forty, fifty, and finally, sixty points in a few days while the insiders walked away with a "cool $500 million." [4]

Another form of corruption involved the holding company in which a parent company owned another company, which owned another company etc. This not only made it difficult for the states to regulate various types of corporate behavior, it also created a situation in which it appeared as if individual companies were buying and selling one another when in fact they were owned and dominated by the same business at the top of the corporate pyramid. In other words, a company could manipulate the value of its stock(s) by buying and selling within its own corporate empire while the American people, the every day investor, hadn't a clue as to what was happening [5]

"Every era has its own type of corporate scandal," Abe said. "In the 1920s it was the kind of insider manipulation that we just discussed. During the Reagen Administration we had a rash of insider trading scandals. "It was essentially a repeat of the 1920s," Abe suggested. "And Bush is little better. In fact he's cut from the same moldy cloth. During the Bush regime we had the Enron scenario and the war profiteering scenario that we have seen since the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq." In other words, the exact practices and nature of the corruption may vary, but in the end it all comes out of the same corporate well. The right wing belief in unregulated (some might say pirate) capitalism becomes the idee fixe in the minds of the corporate elite and its puppet politicians who do their bidding. This became obvious during the years of Newt Gingrich when corporations were literally allowed to write their own, self-serving legislation which was quickly passed (often without a chance for proper review and debate) by the Republican dominated Congress. "For the corporatists--Brandon might say fascists--business is indeed a religion, and all too often religious fanaticism is the end result. They will break any law or any code of ethical standards to promote their corporate faith." And let's not forget the profit motive. In many cases it is perfectly obvious that the only morality these corporations hold dear--then and now--is the bottom line. In the 1920s we had greedy insiders who were only more than happy to twist and distort the system for their own selfish ends, and the same can be said about today. Just as in the 1920s, when ethics and the welfare of the middle class were considered quaint or even obstructions to corporate profits, today we see a corporate set of ethics--or lack thereof--in which the well being of the American people are dismissed to benefit the corporate elite. Outsourcing American jobs to third world and/or communist countries; off shore tactics which allow corporations to escape paying their fair share in axes; corporation backed measures which are designed to curtail the workers' rights to freedom of assembly, to form unions, or to speak out against a corporation; a general weakening of work place safety regulations and the eradication of the eight hour work day; not to mention shrinking wages and longer hours. In many ways the Reagen, Bush I, and Bush II regimes represent a return to the bad old days of Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover. Was no accident that Ronald Reagen removed a portrait of Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers mind you, and replaced it with a picture of his favorite misanthrope, Calvin Coolidge? Of course not. While seemingly symbolic, that action should have told us that Reagen and the pirate capitalists who he brought to power, were deadly serious about dismantling those portions of Roosevelt's New Deal which had been designed to protect the American worker and to shield the American people from another economic catastrophe like the Great Depression.

Another problem was loose credit. The average American could buy stocks for as little as ten percent of the price of the stock. "Does the term 'buying on margin mean anything to you?" Abe asks. "After plopping down his ten percent (for the price of the stocks he was purchasing) the rest of the cost was covered by large commercial banks. They basically transferred the money to brokerage houses and it was the brokerage house that handled the remaining 90 percent of the cost (of the stock)." The pitfalls in this are obvious. As long as the stock performs well and goes up, the investor can always hope to reap a small fortune and then pay off the 90 percent with his profits, but if the price of the stock begins to go down he is for all intent and purposes, out of luck. "Regrettably, a lot of investors bought more on margin than they could ever hope to pay back, more than they could afford. They over extended themselves and were unable to repay the 90 percent if the stock ever fell." [6] And no one bothered to tell them that the idea of a constantly rising stock market was a myth. Nobody told them that such a scenario was unsustainable, that what goes up must come down. Worse yet, the Republican dominated government of the era went out of its way to create the impression that such a system was perpetually sustainable. Leaders of industry and politicians alike touted the idea of industrial innovation, claiming that the dynamic economy would continue to spiral upwards as new technologies were invented, each new technology creating new jobs and new opportunities. [7] "In many ways they were like George W. Bush who told us to show our patriotism through shopping. SHOPPING of all things," Abe chuckles. "In the days following 911 Bush began to sound more and more like a modern day Hoover of Coolidge. He really seemed to believe that the way to dig ourselves out of a recession, and to deal with the trauma of 911 was to make a special trip to Sprawl Mart. Like old Cal and Herbert," Abe continued, George W. Bush really and sincerely believed that shopping, going into debt to buy things we don't even need, is a patriotic act." (To which my husband, PraetorOne (AKA Brandon) would undoubtedly add, "And you thought Franklin Roosevelt was into Keynesian economics.")

"Sadly," Abe continued, "We have another problem with easy credit in today's economic climate. I am of course referring to sub prime loans." In the 1920s, Abe suggested, "we were buying stock on credit. In the early 21st Century we were buying our houses on credits. Only now the interest rates on those loans have begun to inch upwards, incomes are not keeping up with the extra burden of increased (mortgage) interest rates, and people are beginning to lose their homes." Like in the 1920s, Abe maintains, we have a dishonorable sector of the American public, the credit industry, which sold these loans as a kid of panacea to the potential American home owner. Like the propagandists of the 1920s who maintained that the boom would continue forever, George W. Bush praised and promoted the ownership society, openly encouraging the American people to purchase homes that they were unable to avoid. And he was aided by an all to willing Federal Reserve Board which kept interest rates at low rates for so so long that the American people began to believe the lies that their president and the credit industry were spinning on an almost regular basis.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

2007-08-17T10:31:00.001-07:00

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
COMMENTS FROM A SUNDAY AFTERNOON
By Donatra
Edited by Praetorone

During the weeks and months leading up to my marriage, my then future husband told me that I would be marrying into a veritable united Nations and In many ways, he was right on center. My husband is part Irish and Puerto Rican, a former Catholic turned Buddhist. My oldest (half) brother-in-law is part Puerto Rican and Part Swedish, and is a very liberal member of the Unitarian Church, while my youngest (half) brother-in-law is part Puerto Rican and part Danish and describes himself as a progressive Christian. My father-in-law is part Irish, German, and Scottish, a former Presbyterian turned atheist. His wife, my husband's step mother, is part Dutch, Polish, and German, a former Jew turned Episcopalian. And her 87-year-old Uncle is a German-Dutch Jew who immigrated to this country with his parents in the year 1928, luckily missing the rise of Hitler and the nightmare years of the Third Reich.

This is a man whose body is slowly but certainly being crippled by rheumatoid arthritis and failing vision. that's a pity because this is also a man with degrees in both medicine and law, and who sees it as a civic duty to remain informed about what is happening in both, the country he adopted and in the rest of the world. And yet, despite increasing physical infirmities his mind is alert and his memory appears to be as sharp as ever. In may ways he and some of the middle aged members of our crew serve as our 'in house" historians and we are always grateful when Abe can offer his unique insight to some of our materials. Indeed, up until a few years ago, when a series of mini strokes began to affect his vision, he was a semi active member of our old blog, and if you want the honest to God truth, we rather miss him.

One of the benefits that comes from having elderly in-laws (my "great uncle-in-law" turned 87 earlier this year) is that he has actually experienced, lived through this wonderfully interesting and often times bizarre thing that we call history. This of course means that he has first hand information at his command that we don't have, the kind of information that comes from watching the march of history from a personal point of view, not from reading about events, places, and individuals in history books and biographies.   As an eye witness to some of the watershed events of the 20th Century my Uncle-in-Law naturally has opinions about current events, and as an 87-year-old man whose family followed the rise of the Nazi regime throughout the late 1920s and 30s, he of course has an interesting take on those who would compare themselves to the great and near great figures of the past.

Nothing irritates my Uncle Abraham more than when members of the Bush Administration compare themselves to the members of the Roosevelt Administration.

"It's Ironic," Abraham told me. "On the one hand these people--and I use the term loosely--want us to think of them as modern Day FDRs, bravely leading America through another world conflict, but," he adds in a rolling German accent, "on the other hand they are attempting to dismantle everything that Roosevelt did to protect the lower and middle classes. They're trying to have it both ways and anyone with a serious background in history knows that they are playing fast and loose with the facts."   In addition, Abe is distressed by the disingenuous rhetoric from the current Administration which attempts to equate the current war on terrorism with the tragedy that was the Second World War.

"I don't think people today understand just how serious things were back then," Abe offers. "By the early 1940s--1942 I believe--the world situation was grim. Very grim. Hitler, the Nazi war machine, and their Italian allies had conquered most of the European continent and were threatening to crush the Soviet Union." Then, from memory he began to list the European nations which had come under the domination of Italian and German Fascism. "Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia. and Greece. Finland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania, " he added, "were Axis occupied territories; Italy had swallowed up Libya." Continuing in a similar vein, Abe pointed out that by 1942 the German war machine had conquered the Ukraine and was poised to swallow up Moscow, Stalingrad, and the oil rich Caucuses. And then there was that matter of Italy's occupation of Libya." Or, as my husband has put it on previous occasions, the Mediterranean was little more than an Axis dominated lake.

The situation wasn't any better in the Pacific where by September 1941, Imperial Japan had consumed Korea, Manchuria, much of the Eastern Coast of China, French Indo China, Formosa, and Sakhalin Island. Moreover there were plans in the making to conquer Thailand, Borneo, Sumatra, Java, New Guinea, the Philippine Islands, the Solomon Islands, the Kurile Islands, etc. Chillingly, most of these objectives were obtained within a period of six months, including the sneak attack o Pearl harbor which quite literally destroyed the American presence in the Pacific Ocean. "Again," Abe offers. "Nobody realized how badly off the United States was during this time." Noting past influence by the isolationists in the form of the America First Movement, Abe informed me that in the mid 1930s America had the 18th largest military in the world. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had superior war machines and more war ready soldiers than the United States. "You have to remember," Abe said, "that the Isolationist movement fought President Roosevelt at almost every turn. They were determined to keep America out of another World War. The only problem was that this was the wrong war to avoid. But the Republicans were eager to score points against Roosevelt whenever they could and then, like now, they weren't afraid to engage in a little fear mongering. When I was a young man it was the fear of another conflict like the first World War. Today the Republicans use the fear of terrorism to smear their opponents. It's the same tactic played over and over again like a badly scratched phonograph record." When I asked Abe if the America First movement wasn't a broadly based movement that was composed of both, Democrats and Republicans, he responded by telling me that it was indeed a broadly based political movement, but that it was primarily a Republican led phenomenon.

"And I suspect that there was more than just a little Antisemitism mixed in there too. According to Abe, Antisemitism ran rampant in the years prior to the Second World War. Indeed, it wasn't really until the liberation of the Nazi death camps near the end of the war that Antisemitism became a dirty word. "There were people out there--at least i think they were people--who believed that Jews were in charge of the banks. There was a belief out there that we were a part of some secret society or maybe a conspiracy to control and dominate the United States, maybe even the world." During his youth Abe frequently heard the old cliches about Jewish people: That they were all rich, that they were dishonest in business transactions, that they had killed Christ, that they were vampires who wanted to drink the blood of Christian children. "Both the Catholic and Protestant churches had troubling theories about Jews," he remembers. "Much of the hatred towards Jews in those days came from Christian denominations who taught that Jews were tools of the devil. The Catholics and the Lutherans stand out as some of the most virulent, but other denominations were just as loathsome." Abe also remembers reading about and seeing photos of Nazi youth, American children who burned books in public squares, and who goose stepped to the antisemitic chant that was drifting out of central Europe during the prewar years. "They looked Iike and behaved like the Hitler youth," Abe said. "Like their counterparts in Germany and Austria, they would congregate at some public square, throw books on blazing bonfires, and sing the praises of Hitler and antisemitism. And it didn't help to have a national hero who was openly sympathetic to the German regime." When asked to specify, Abe informed me that Charles Lindbergh, a popular aviation hero of the era, had been a driving force in the isolationist America First movement, as well known for his antisemitism as for his aviation talents. "Lindbergh was no friend of the English or the French and he certainly wasn't a small d democrat.   If you ask me I don't think he saw the conflict between Hitler and the western democracies as a fight between freedom and totalitarianism." This after all was a man (Lindbergh) who, had traveled to Germany and offered glowing reports about the rising Reich and German peoples love for their nation and Fuhrer. Lindbergh, like so many of the people in the America First movement, refused to recognize Hitler and the Nazi government for what it was. "As a matter of fact, I think he appreciated the regime, gave it what you kids call an 'official thumbs up.'"

So how does the current conflict differ from World War II? "The terrorists can do a lot of damage if they set their minds to it," said Abe. "But it isn't like World War II. It is not as if they can destroy an entire nation state. It is not a global conflict. We see pockets of conflict. An offensive here, and offensive there, but we do not have large armies of hundreds of thousands of soldiers sweeping across continents trying to capture Berlin, or Paris or London. It's an entirely different situation. Entirely different."

So are there other differences?   "Most certainly," Abe responded. According to Abe, the entire attitude is different. "No politician, no leader, not a Democrat or a Republican would have treated a returning Vet (during World War II) the way George W. Bush treats returning Veterans from Iraq. "That creature in the White House has no feelings for anyone but himself. He has this attitude that tells him volunteer soldiers are disposable. He cares as little about our returning Veterans as he does for anyone else. Your husband, and others, believe that the man is a sociopath. I don't have a problem with that argument, because I believe it to be true." In Abe's opinion Franklin Roosevelt had a watershed event in his life which made a huge difference in the way he treated people. "The rich people in this country viewed Roosevelt as a traitor to his own class. After he was struck with polio and lost the use of his legs, Mister Roosevelt developed an even deeper understanding for people." And by people Abe does not mean the members of the economic elite. He means the lower and middle classes. "Unlike Herr Bush," Abe continued, "Roosevelt developed a deeper compassion--genuine compassion for the middle and lower classes. Herr Bush, on the other hand, has yet to want for anything. The man suffered, that much is certain. He suffered when his little sister died of leukemia and his parents wouldn't allow him to mourn. But Bush never used that experience to develop genuine empathy, genuine sympathy. It may well be that he never could. Sincere empathy and compassion are alien concepts to this man." Bush, Abe believes. was probably born a psychopath or a sociopath. The manner in which he was raised didn't help the situation either. When a sociopath or a psychopath is constantly bailed out of the trouble that they so often cause for themselves, it only makes them more reckless and more dangerous. Bush has a long record of close calls, and a powerful clique of friends and family who have repeatedly pulled his chestnuts out of the fire. He has yet to face the consequences for his wrong doing, although I suspect--very strongly mind you--that this is about to change now that the rats are abandoning the sinking ship of state."

Unlike Roosevelt, Bush has yet to create a sense of the American people being "in it together." This isn't only true of the failed invasion of Iraq, but in his failure to demand any real sacrifice from the American people. "Look, Kelli, when I was a young man during World War II we rationed--don't laugh--rubber. When it became clear that America required rubber and that the Germans had learned how to make synthetic rubber, we realized that we had to do something until we had the ability to synthesize rubber right here at home." This Abe explains led to a number of unpopular steps by "that man in the white house." One of the most unpopular involved tires. In an effort to conserve rubber the Roosevelt Administration made it more difficult to buy a new set of tires. Ultimately this led to gas rationing. "The idea went something like this. We didn't have a gas shortage, but Roosevelt realized that if he made it harder to drive long distances there would be an automatic conservation of rubber." Other moves had already been taken with other products made out of rubber, but with the advent of gas rationing the people were not at all amused. "Roosevelt remedied the situation with one of his fireside chats. He simply went on the air, explained the situation, and promised that the government was actively promoting a synthetic rubber program." In addition to an explanation Roosevelt initiated a drive in which various rubber products (everything from the rubber in women's girdles, to rubber balls, rubber bands, and pet toys) were collected during rubber drives and shipped off for recycling, to be used in the war effort. "It made the American people feel as if they were doing something for the war effort." And more importantly it reduced opposition to gas rationing. "And there was an up side to the situation." And what an up side it was. traffic fatalities went down. People went to movies and learned to enjoy simpler, more personal and interactive forms of entertainment. "Instead of driving all over creation on weekend joy trips, we stayed at home, got to know our neighbors. We rediscovered that wonderful thing called conversation--something your generation should rediscover."

Rubber wasn't the only product that was rationed. Sugar was rationed. American housewives learned to use corn syrup and saccharine (yes it was around even then) as substitutes in their baking. Those same housewives also learned to cut back on eggs in their baking, they poured yellow dye into margarine so that our troops could use real butter.    Nylon was another product which had to be rationed. To that end the one piece bathing suit disappeared and the two piece bathing suit was born.   The hemlines on now unpleated skirts rose to above the knee. Even fat was recycled.   "And then there were the coupon books," Abe chuckled. "As a part of the war time rationing families were given coupon books. You'd use thee coupons to buy food, clothing, shoes, you name it. If I remember correctly, you had to make the coupons last for a month. It was an inconvenience, but it certainly rationed all those important things that were needed by our troops." Revealing an obvious, but restrained anger, Abe then added, "that's a hell of a difference from THIS aschloch who sent our troops into battle without the proper equipment for an invasion."

And then there were the price caps and tax hikes. Unlike The Shrub, Roosevelt recognized the fact that America needed to properly fund the war, Bush has yet to so much as ask the American people to make a significant sacrifice towards for this war and the troops. "He's more interested in protecting his own class and his own fortunes," Abe grumbled accusingly. "If Roosevelt was a traitor in the eyes of the wealthy elite, what is the aschloch?   Your husband is a Star Trek fan. He says it time and time again. 'The needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the few.' Roosevelt understood this. The American people (in the 1940s) understood this. Bush, however is the only schwienhund who does not --as you kids like to say--'get it.' He has taken your husband's very logical axiom and he has turned it on it's head. 'The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.' Maybe it's even worse. Perhaps he believes that the needs of 'the one,' (himself) outweigh the needs of the many." In either event, Abe truly believes that Bush is more interested in protecting his own elite class than he is in preserving the middle class. "That young man of yours has a theory and it goes something like this: Conservatives see democracy and a thriving middle class as a threat to order and stability. To that I would add, 'you are damned right my dear boy. Especially when it's the conservatives who will be dictating the order and stability." In Abe's opinion the so called conservatives in this country despise, or perhaps even fear, a prosperous middle class because prosperity creates leisure time and leisure time gives people time to think about freedom,. democracy, and human rights. Sadly for us, "freedom, democracy, and human rights are anathema to conservative notions of order and stability"

"My parents came to this country in 1928 after my father read a copy of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf," said Abe. " Papa believed that if someone were crazy enough to write that kind of insanity that same person would be crazy enough to act on his writings if he ever came to power." Regrettably Abe's Aunts and Uncles refused to take Hitler's rambling treatise seriously. While Abe and his parents and three siblings came to the United States, the rest of the family refused to take the German warlord seriously. I don't think I have to tell you what happened to the European branch of his family. "Most of them didn't make it," Abe said ruefully. "Between outright extermination, disease, starvation, and being worked to death...You can guess what happened. Very few of them survived it."

Chillingly, Abe recognizes similar patterns between then and now. "I see another leader," Abe said, "an American leader who is using the same tactics that Hitler used during his rise to power. I see the scapegoating of racial minorities and homosexuals; and those antisemitic Dominionists who celebrate the idea of Jesus coming back to earth to kill and torture the Jewish infidels. Oh yes. They make me feel ever so safe." But it is the political shenanigans which trouble Abe the deepest. "I see (an abuse) of power at the expense of our civil liberties. I see the emergence of a unitary executive branch which is undermining the separation of powers in the same way that the Nazis undermined the Wiemar Republic. And the so called Patriot Act. Is this not the American equivalent of the Enabling Act which Hitler used to claim dictatorial power in the days following the Reichstag Fire?" According to Abe we have been here before. Sadly, the American people are not well versed in their world history and that has made it much easier for Bush Incorporated to rewrite the past record whenever it serves him to do so. "If Bush is cunning sociopath or psychopath--and I believe he is--he is also a megalomaniac.   He craves power in the same way that an alcoholic craves the next shot of vodka. We've been here before, We've seen all of this before. But we still have people who think Bush is some kind of great war leader, and we still have people who are willing to give up freedom for security. Ignorance and fear are a frightening combination--especially when they can be manipulated to serve the twisted impulses of a corrupt, and I might add, power hungry leader."

Just Arrest Them and Get iIt Over With

2007-08-01T16:36:00.001-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_go_co/bush_congress_6;_ylt=AmsR.nXWHpLGSB3VXDfgli0E1vAI

Somebody really needs to tell this president that Executive Privilege is not a law.  It is only a theory by which guilty presidents try to conceal the evidence of their wrong doing. The last time a president tried this kind of tactic the Supreme Court ruled that Executive privilege does not apply when crimes are being investigated. Translated into modern English, this Administration is being investigated for possible crimes, and I think it's about time that the Congress looked back to the 1930s and exercised one of its legal powers: the power of Inherent Contempt. If goons like Rove refuse to obey a subpoena, and if it is discovered that Bush is openly ordering or encouraging him to ignore that subpoena, the the solution is very simple. As one of my team members has already suggested, the Congress should summon the Sergeant at Arms, round up a few Capital Hill Police, and arrest the bastards for contempt of Congress. Personally, I think this is necessary to remind both, the American people, and our political leaders that they are NOT monarchs; that they are still the elected servants of the people in a Representative Democracy; not the divine rulers in a corrupt Monarchy. every generation needs to see the legal system at work on its leaders, bringing them down to the level of the common man and forcing them to comply with the law, not half baked theories such as "executive privilege."

Moreover, we need to get at the truth, and this obstructionist administration of crooks, liars, thieves, and cold blooded murderers must be forced to tell the truth. But for some reason Bush seems to think that he really is a King George III. And to make matters worse, he doesn't even seem to care how his obstructionist behavior appears to the American people and to the world in general.

"President Bush is expected to claim executive privilege to prevent two more White House aides from testifying before Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors

Thursday is the deadline for Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, to provide testimony and documents related to the firings, under a subpoena from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Also subpoenaed was White House political aide J. Scott Jennings. The Justice Department included both men on e-mails about the firings and the administration's response to the congressional investigation.

White House Counsel Fred Fielding has consistently said that top presidential aides — present and past — are immune from subpoenas and has declared the documents sought off-limits under executive privilege."

And while that somebody is at it they might consider telling this abomination of a leader that not allowing key witnesses to testify creates an impression of guilt.  Okay, when it comes to this administration the chances are that it has yet to engage in a single legal act, preferring to skulk around in the shadows like your typical, run of the mill crime syndicate, but still they might at least try to create the impression that they are TRYING to look innocent, no matter how corrupt and blood stained they might be.

Song Parody: "GET OUT OF TOWN!"

2007-07-30T16:32:00.001-07:00

GET OUT OF TO TOWN (THE GONZO SONG)
Based on DON'T BRING ME DOWN
By the Electric Light Orchestra
New lyrics by Praetor One and Bible Belted

You Keep on lying, are you out of your mind?
You keep on talking but you're in such a bind
Get out of town. Yo yo yo yo yo
We tell you dear friend, all your deceit better end
Get out of town.

We kind of think that you've got something to hide.
You lied again with your maw open too wide.
Get out of town. Yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo.
We hear what you say, a contradiction today
Get out of town!

Get out of town! You!
Get out of town! You!
Get out of town! You!
Get out of town!

You brought the papers that would give Bush our land
Card at the door while you were moving John's hand
Get out of town! Yo yo yo yo yo!
You said "we're ahead," but then the corpse wasn't dead
Get out of town!

You come before us and you give an account.
The truth is something you will never surmount!
Get out of town! Yo yo yo yo yo!
You covered it well, but then your plan went to hell
Get out of town!

Get out of town! You!
Get out of town! You!
Get out of town! You!
Get out of town!

You're acting tough like you've got balls made of brass.
But some day soon you're gonna fall on your ass!
Get out of town! Yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo!
We tell you again, it's just a question of when!
You're out of town!

You qualified because you're W's hack.
But brains and morals are what you clearly lack
Get out of town! Yo yo yo yo yo!
We think it's a flaw, that you can piss on the law!
You're out of town!

THE WORLD'S DUMBEST FATWAS

2007-07-30T11:59:00.001-07:00

The following article was posted by our Friend Dusty at THE BLUE REPUBLIC
You may read her blog, IT'S MY RIGHT TO BE LEFT OF CENTER at: http://leftwingnutjob.blogspot.com/

I genuinely enjoyed this piece. In many ways it reminds me of the kind of material that my son used to write on the original version of this blog, THE COALITION FOR A REPUBLICAN-FREE AMERICA. We offer it here as a Guest Perspective because it is both humorous, and indicative as to how far certain right wing religionists will carry an irrational thought pattern.

Enjoy it. I know we did.

Enlightenment

DUSTY'S DIATRIBE:
THE WORLD'S DUMBEST FATWAS

Lately I have noticed that American culture has embraced the word "Fatwa". It of course has a negative connotation no matter what group uses it. We, as American's, use it in a humorous fashion to note something completely ridiculous and outside the normal scope of logic. So lets take a humorous look at the original use of the word. Your obviously not working anyway..so humor me people!

A Fatwa is explained by Wikipedia as: "a considered opinion in Islam made by a mufti, a scholar capable of issuing judgments on Sharia (Islamic law). Usually a fatwa is issued at the request of an individual or a judge to settle a question where fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) is unclear." I think that's pretty deep..so lets just call it a Religious Ruling by a guy who probably wears a funny hat or head-covering ok?

This seems simple enough..reminds me of a religious edict, you know like the Pope is wont to do on occasion and something that asshat Pat Robertson does on a semi-regular basis.

Foreign Policy has an article up which lists what they consider to be the dumbest most fuckwitted Fatwa's ever handed down. They list the 'Fatwa" and the moron who issued it and why. Lets visit some of these bonehead pronouncements ok?

1. Salman Rushdie. The idiot that issued this Fatwa was none other than Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. As most people know, this one was issued because the mullahs didn't like his book entitled "The Satanic Verses", which was about the Koran and its dubious merits. The rest is history. Oh..The Queen has knighted Salman for his literary talent..

2. Unclothed Sex. I kid you not..unclothed sex. Rashad Hassan Khalil, former dean of Islamic law at al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt issued this winner. This dipshit ruled in January 2006 that for married couples, "being completely naked during the act of coitus annuls the marriage," For the love of Pete, every normal Muslim this side of Osama went crazy over this one. The article points out how this was settled as "a husband and wife could see one other naked, but should not look at each other's genitals. And they should probably have sex under a blanket, he added for good measure. Bet that one went over big in the middle of the 118 degree summers in the Middle East..Get laid and get a heat rash..wotta deal!

3. Pokemon…yes, I said Pokemon. That innocent little set of Japanese cartoon characters had a Fatwa issued against them for 'possessing the minds' of young Muslims. Saudi Arabia's Higher Committee for Scientific Research and Islamic Law issued this sucker. Everything Pokemon was banned from Saudi Arabia in 2001 my dear reader. Something to do with the Star of David..that horrid signature of Zionism. The United Arab Emirates joined in the fun of banning Pokemon..as did…wait for it… The Catholic Church of Mexico.

Click Here For More Fat-Whaaaa?

4. This one is an absolute trip..The Polio Vaccine. Some hayseed mullahs from Pakistan instigated this one. I can't begin to describe the logic for this one, so lets quote the FP article: "Pakistan's largest Islamist umbrella group, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), issued a fatwa in January 2007 endorsing the provincial government's efforts to immunize children from polio in the country's Northwest Frontier Province.

But even though health workers carried copies of the ruling with them as they trudged across the province, The Guardian reported in February 2007 that the parents of some 24,000 children had refused to allow the workers to administer polio drops. It turns out that influential antistate clerics had been issuing their own fatwas denouncing the campaign as a Western plot to sterilize Muslims. Although Pakistan only saw 39 cases of polio last year and most children have now been immunized, a similar religiously motivated firestorm against polio drops in Nigeria in 2003 allowed the eradicable disease to spread to 12 new countries in just 18 months."

5. We come to the last contestant for dumbest religious decree in the history of Islamic law folks. It's a real doozie as you might imagine. Its…drumroll please: Breast-feeding. Some jackass lecturer at Cairo's al-Azhar University had the nads to state that since unmarried Muslim men and women shouldn't work alone together, the best way to solve this problem was to let the female breastfeed the male she worked with. He based his logic, and I use that word loosely, on stories from the Prophet Mohammed's time in which, he maintained, the practice occurred. Everyone went ballistic on this dipshit extraordinaire real quick..so he recanted his Fatwa saying his ruling as a "bad interpretation of a particular case."—No Shit Sherlock..ya think??

So, there you have it my dear reader..a short list of the dumbest most asinine Fatwa's in modern history. What can we learn from this, you might be wondering at this point? For starters, that the Pope isn't the most idiotic religious leader on the planet and neither is Pat Robertson….although you might get a rousing argument out of me about the latter, THAT man hasn't got the brains God gave a Grapefruit for Christ's sake. His Pope-ness isn't the brightest bulb on the planet either imho with his desire to go revert back to Latin in Mass…come on wingnut..the original language was HEBREW..try that one on for size you nimrod! They both have some serious competition from the religious leaders of one of the world's oldest religions.

I Love Books!

2007-07-25T16:04:00.001-07:00

My God, I love books. No this isn't a plug for National Banned Book Week which is coming up in September. Instead it's just a happy little piece about how I still enjoy the feel, scent, and comfort of a good book or books.

Earlier this year I offered to run the annual book sale at the public library where I am a part time employee. The books that we sell are donated by our patrons and by other generous people who learn about our sale and who want to help us become the best public library that we can possibly be, people who appreciate the value of a small town library and the many services that it provides to the community at large.

Call me strange but I love rummaging through and sorting all those boxes upon boxes of donated volumes. And if any of you have ever been involved with a library book sale you probably know what I am talking about. I get a genuine high, looking at all those hard covers and paper backs, sorting through the different types of literature out there. Personally speaking, my favorite sections are the history/political, biography/life stories, and adult nonfiction, although there are certain classics that send gleeful chills of pleasure down the back of my neck. This year the biography section was both amusing and enlightening. General Sherman, Abraham Lincoln, Shirley Temple Black, Herman Goering. Okay, Shirley and Herman are a bizarre coupling, almost as interesting as the Marquis De Sade and Dolly Parton, but that doesn't change the fact that I still get a kick out of books.

I know, I know, we have the Internet, the World Wide Web, but for some reason I don't find the personal comfort, the intimacy on line that I find when I curl up with a good book. Moreover, there are still tidbits of information that do not always appear on line but which ca only be found in a --you guessed it--a book. When my team members and I bite off extensive writing projects for The Blue Republic, The Peace Train, or our group blog, we almost invariably use the net to track down tidbits of information, while one of us uses the card catalog at a local library. Our library, by the way is one of 53 libraries in an even larger consortium of libraries, so in a very real sense we use the net and online card catalogs to track down detailed information that we can't find through Internet searches. And to be perfectly honest, the material we find in books has, to date, proven more accurate and more detailed than some of the sites we discard during a long and creative writing process.

So while I appreciate the Internet and its wonderful (and at times not so wonderful contribution to society at large) I feel that I have to put in a plug for the all time classics. Printed materials. Books, newspapers, and magazines. But first and foremost, the wonderful, educational book.

Have a good one

BibleBelted

Live Long and Prosper
Jeff

Ignorance and Hypocrisy in Northern Illinois

2007-07-25T12:07:00.000-07:00

http://www.beloitdailynews.com/articles/2007/07/24/news/news01.txt

For the record, the city in which this debate is taking place is only a brief drive from my house in Wisconsin to the Illinois side of the border, and as I read the piece I was actually rather surprised by the number of mindless homophobes who would be opposed to having a Gay Straight Alliance as a part of their curriculum.

What does this article tell me? It tells me that this northeastern Illinois, like certain areas of Southeastern Wisconsin, has a huge problem with bigotry and that both the adolescents (please read in a derogatory tone of voice) and the so called "adults" in the picture have a long way to go before they can be accepted as genuine members of the human race.

Some of the comments here are truly amazing (read asinine). "This is no chess club we're putting together here.," said a protohominid from Roscoe. Really? I'm surprised he was erudite enough to tell the difference. And then there's this line of dysfunctional reasoning: "Lora Sue Hauser, a representative from the Illinois Family Institute, cited research that asserts 75 percent of boys who label themselves gay as teens become straight in adulthood. It would be 'educationally irresponsible,' she said, for the school to endorse homosexuality." Frankly I'm getting a little sick and tired of these Manson Family Value Institutes spewing their pseudo science and half baked reasoning as sociological fact. The truth of the matter is that these people are not thinking scientifically. Instead of beginning with a hypothesis and allowing the data to lead them to a conclusion, they begin with a conclusion, stack the data to support their conclusion, and then claim that they engaged in legitimate research as they use their fraudulent research to support their delusional preconceived ideas. sweet pea recently covered the manner in which these people fudge the facts in our series about Right Wing Revision, so I won't repeat that information. I shall merely leave you with a link to SweetPea's excellent article about phony research by the Radical Religious Right.*

But I will add this. In addition to allowing their delusions to get in the way of serious research, I would humbly suggest that these creatures are also allowing their all too hysterical emotions and their fanatical religious views to color, to contaminate their attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Why, you must ask yourself, would it matter one iota as to how a young person identifies himself? Why is the Illinois Family Institute so obsessed with the idea of sexual orientation, indeed with sex in general? Oh Jeez. I don't know. Could it be because the right is dependent on scapegoats to unify their base? Could it be because gays provide a convenient group to persecute, that people on the religious right are so deeply entrenched in hate disguised as religious fervor that the only way they can feel better about themselves is by persecuting those who they consider below them, as somehow subhuman or inferior? Could be. God knows it wouldn't be the first time that religious mania has led to the persecution of the different. Witness the countless crusades, witch hunts, and bloody Inquisitions in which the Christian community has engaged while trying to secure his brother's and sister's place in blissful, Utopian paradise. Granted, we aren't burning people at the stake or torturing them on the rack or in the iron maiden, but the mindset is clearly there, and whether we like it or not, there is a great deal more straight (Christian?) violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals than there is gay on straight (Christian?) violence.

So again, the question must be asked? Just who does it hurt if students want to form a gay-straight alliance? What exactly are these religious loonies afraid of? The possibility that clear-thinking individuals will find a common basis for peaceful coexistence? The frightening possibility that people will discover that they aren't so different from one another after all? A peaceful, tolerant, and accepting society in which trivial matters such as race and sexual orientation have no bearing on whether one is a loving and caring individual? No. We wouldn't to do that. W wouldn't want to do anything that contradicts the violent, hateful, perverted, and self contradicting sections of the Holy Bible, and we certainly wouldn't want to make life a little easier and more pleasant for those who are not like us.

In closing I would offer the following suggestion. I find it interesting that student led groups are allowed to use tax payer dollars to pray around flag poles and to create religious after school programs. In other words, when something violates the Constitution of the United States and creates a little religious fiefdom within your local school district, the far right has no trouble when it comes to both, spending the tax dollars of the dissident to shove their moronic belief systems down our throats. But when those who differ want the same right to form organizations and to express themselves then the Christian Neanderthals will lumber out of their caves to beat back anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. Well, they can't have it both ways If religious groups can violate the constitution and use the public school to indoctrinate school children with their asinine ideas, then gays and lesbians should be allowed the same right to express the truth and to set the record straight. On the other hand, if gays and lesbians can be banned from forming gay-straight alliances based on some psychotic reading of the so called holy text, then the low brow Neanderthals and their subhuman religious delusions should also be banned.

In other words, I have just about had it with these people, and I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't time to drive them back into the dark, dank cave of ignorance and superstition from which they lumbered.

*See
http://coalitionforademocracticamerica.blogspot.com/2007/05/theocratic-revision-at-its-worst-part-v.html

CIA TO RESUME TORTURE AT BUSH REQUEST

2007-07-23T13:59:00.000-07:00

I just "love" this.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072107Z.shtml

The far right in this country typically loves to demonize gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered as perverted or abnormal, claiming we are unnatural or otherwise harmful to society, but when you think about it these are the same twisted individuals who seem to get a sexual thrill out of torture.

Frankly I don't get it. Or maybe I DO get it and I just hate to admit that we have fallen under the sick, twisted, domination of authoritarian (some might say totalitarian or even fascist) leaders for whom the inflicting of pain, suffering, bleeding, and dying are little more than a part of an average day's work. Or maybe I don't want to admit an even frightening truth: that our leaders in the Bush Administration and their theocratic supporters have actually WELCOMED the terror of 911 because it has offered then an excuse to reveal their demented ideas pertaining to patriotism and nationalism.

Under normal circumstances patriotism, the ability to love your country and to right it when it is wrong, is a good thing. But the current batch of reactionary totalitarians have used patriotism as an excuse to indulge their dark sides. Not only do they see torture and sadism as tools of the Bush foreign/intelligence policy. They seem to enjoy the pain and suffering that they impose on others. In other words, I would suggest very strongly that Praetorone (Brandon) has it right. We have fallen under the repressive yoke of sexual sadists, of demented sociopaths and psychopaths who to revel in the pain and suffering of others and for whom laws and social norms have no meaning what so ever.. They seem to operate on their twisted, inner instincts, showing nothing that even resembles a human conscience, except on those occasions when they decide to play the part of caring, compassionate individuals. Of course it's all a front, because when it is all said and done these people have no feelings for anyone except themselves and, to make matters worse, they show a strong proclivity for destroying everything they touch. Worse yet, they refuse to learn from their mistakes. Or rather, they are incapable of learning from their mistakes.

And now the bad news. Whenever these creatures are bailed out of their self-created dilemnas it only reinforces their dysfunctional personalities, encouraging them to behave even more outrageously than they had before. And God knows Bush has lived an entire lifetime, sixty miserable years in which he has been bailed out of trouble by friends, family members, and business partners who unknowingly encouraged and nurtured his sociopathic/psychopathic nature.

So now the Administration has unleashed the CIA and given it permission to resume torture as a part of our national defense policy. Translated into modern English, the Psychopaths in the Executive Branch of the federal government felt the need, the overpowering urge, to torture and murder again.

Which makes me wonder. How are they different from classic serial killers suck as Jack The Ripper, Ted Bundy, and the Boston Strangler? I would suggest that the only real difference is one of power. The Bush Administration, the cold blooded murderers and sadists who we so foolishly elected to power are merely upper class versions of the above-mentioned serial killers. The only difference is that while jack the Ripper used a knife, the Bush Administration uses the power of the federal government that it usurped in both, 2000 and 2004 to commit cold blooded murder and torture.

It's official: WE'RE PREGNANT!

2007-07-19T09:20:00.000-07:00

That's right. It is now official. Donatra and I are expecting a baby! Okay, SHE'LL be doing the actual work in this particular situation, but if all goes well our household will soon welcome a special bundle of joy.

Needless to say we are both thrilled by this and more than just a little eager to share the good news.

It was kind of funny. Kelli hadn't been feeling quite right for some time now. She'd been kind of irritable. Angry one minute, crying the next, and she said she felt like she "was coming down with something." She was telling this to BibleBelted when we were at his house. My dad was sitting behind her at the table listening to all this when Kelli tells Bible "Brandon must be ready to divorce me by now." Bible asked why. She told him about how she feels like crying for no reason at all, how she feels week and fatigued. And then, to top it all off, she adds, "and to make it even worse I'm getting fat. I could hardly squeeze into my blue jeans this morning." By this time my dad is making facial gesticulations at Bible. We left shortly after supper. My dad and step mother stayed behind and then my dad asked Bible: "I know the doctor said Kelli might have trouble conceiving, but are you SURE she isn't pregnant?" Bible just looked at my dad and tossed out "I"M NOT GETTING INTO THAT MESS! I think we should talk to Brandon (Praetor) and let HIM ask her!" They called me, Dad asked me if Kelli might be pregnant. I asked Kelli (AKA Donatra) and Kelli nearly laughed herself silly. I kept asking her if she was sure and all that crap and finally she said, "Look. If you want to put this to rest we'll get a home pregnancy kit and I'll show you just how crazy the idea really is." But when she came out of the bathroom after having taken the test, she had this expression on her face that said it all. We have since received confirmation and yes, it is definite. We are pregnant. The baby is due in February, and we're both elated.

Our Brother's and Sisters Keeper: Peace is Patriotic

2007-07-03T11:52:00.001-07:00

OUR BROTHER'S AND SISTER'S KEEPER
PEACE IS PATRIOTIC
by Praetor One, SweetPea, BibleBelted, and Matthew5

"Just a minute. Now hold on Mister Potter. You're right when you say my father was no business man, I know that. Why he ever started this cheap, penny-ante Building and Loan I'll never know. But neither you nor anybody else can say anything against his character because his whole life was...Why in twenty-five years since he and Uncle Billy started this thing he never once thought of himself. Isn't that right Uncle Billy? He didn't save enough money to send Harry to school, let alone me, but he did help a few people get out of your slums, Mister Potter. And what's wrong with that? Why...Here, you're all businessmen here. Doesn't it make them better citizens? Doesn't it make them better customers? You...you said that uh...What'd you say just a minute ago? They, they had to wait and save money before they even thought of a decent home. Wait? Wait for what? Until their children grow up and leave them? Until they're so old and broken down that they...Do you know how long it takes a working man to save five thousand dollars? Just remember this, Mister Potter, that this rabble you're talking about...they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn't think so. People were human beings to him, but to you, a warped frustrated old man, they're cattle. Well, in my book he died a much richer man than you'll ever be."

From the Frank Capra Film, It's A Wonderful Life
Written by Philip Va Doren Stern (story) and Frances Goodrich (screenplay).

In a slight change of pace we've decided to write about another kind of peace. The kind of peace that comes from knowing you live in a sane, prosperous society where the middle class is valued and treasured, not undermined at every turn by conservative leaders who are terrified of and perhaps even jealous of a prosperous middle class. The dirty little secret in Republican Administrations from Reagen onwards, has been the disturbing fact that right wingers aren't only fearful of gays, lesbians, and minorities. They are also frightened by the idea of a prosperous middle class, disturbed by the idea that people might actually have leisure time in which they can think about their condition and take steps to improve their lot in life.

This may come as a surprise to corporate America and its theocratic allies; and it may even come as a bigger supply to the burdened middle class, but in many ways the most politically productive times in this country are those in which large numbers of Americans have disposable income and leisure time to think about the important issues of the day. It is no coincidence that one of our greatest eras of change, the 1960s, was a prosperous era in which Americans enjoyed little things like decent health care and a relatively rational health care system; when workers stood up for workers rights, and when employees were more cooperative with their workers and more willing to make concessions than they are in today's economy. It is not a coincidence that the Civil Rights movement, which had been slowly building in previous decades, began to bear fruit in the 1960s and 1970s when Americans still enjoyed little things like pensions, vacation time, an eight hour day, and safe working places. With extra time and extra income the American people were more willing to think about the critical issues of the day. Not threatened by an ever increasingly competitive workplace and a limited number of jobs, the American people were more willing to share slices of the political and economic pies with those who differed from them.

By the same standard, it is no coincidence that the women's movement came to the forefront during the early 1970s, again a time of relative prosperity when people had the time and resources to consider the great issues of the day.

Unfortunately for us, for the American worker, taxpayer, and middle class citizen, the Powers That Be, the corporate overlords and aristocrats, discovered, during he late 70s and especially during the 1980s, the era of Reaganomics, that there were ways to curtail thoughts about freedom and reform, and the primary way in which this could be achieved was through the weakening and virtual destruction of the Middle Class. And the best way to do that was through the dismantling of the reforms that were set down by Franklin Roosevelt and the Democrats during the 1930s. Mind you, this is not a debate as to whether or not the New Deal was a successful remedy to the Republicans' Great Depression. This is a discussion about the protections that were set in place during the Roosevelt era which were designed to protect the rights of he American worker and to limit the power of and ability of corporate America to exploit the American worker. This is not a a discussion as to whether or not the New Deal was Socialistic. The primary topic of discussion here is one of whether we want efficiently regulated capitalism or the kind of cutthroat highway robbery which is passed off as capitalism in the modern era of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.

You just have to give the Republicans' credit. In their modest opinion (and they have a lot to be modest about) Ronald Reagen is a bona fide political saint; a modern day reformer who arrived just in time to defeat the forces of communism and socialism.   But when Ronald Reagan denigrated the words "I'm from the Federal Government and I am here to help," he was in fact announcing his intention to deregulate big business (read " to encourage corporate corruption) at the expense of the America worker and middle class. Or, as we are so fond of saying, "When Democrats wage a war against poverty they wage a war against social, political, and economic injustice, against social problems; when Republicans wage a war against poverty they wage a war against the weak, the ill, the poor, and the middle class." In other words, Reaganomics (and the current economic/financial policies of the present Bush Administration, are based primarily upon Social Darwinism and totalitarian values, not values such as freedom, democracy, and Constitutional liberties.

The first indications to exactly how ruthless the far right could be was when Ronald Reagan placed our air traffic by summarily firing the air traffic controllers. Not only did this create a situation in which countless lives might have been put in danger (a condition which seldom bothers Republicans if there is a profit be made), it also sent a signal that the new (Reagan) Administration would be more than willing to side with the few and the powerful and against millions of hard working American taxpayers.

Reagen's tax cuts were a joke as well. Why? Because they weren't really tax cuts. Each time Reagan cut taxes at the Federal level the states and local governments were forced to increase state and local taxes to make up the difference. And who were the ultimate victims? You guessed it. The average taxpayer and home owner who paid the difference in state,county, local, and real estate taxes. moreover, there wasn't even that much cutting at the Federal level. Orwellian to the very end, the Reagan Administration merely made up the difference by increasing fees and plugging loopholes. In the crazy, inverted world of Reaganomics, terms such as "tightening IRS enforcement," "Revenue enhancements," ad nauseam were all synonymous with the term "raising taxes," although the Administration in Washington would never admit as much.

The Tax "Reform" Act of 1986 offered more in the way of imbecility. Only this time the act was so convoluted and so confusing that the only people who could even vaguely understand it were accountants and tax lawyers. Indeed, the Reagan class warriors had finally succeeded in creating a tax code that was so confusing and so bizarre that he IRS didn't even understand it. At the same time the various loophole closings resulted in another burden on most of the middle and even some of the upper class. According to a study conducted by Hausman and Poterba, the 196 Tax Reform translated into a marginal tax increase for more than 40 percent of the nation's tax payers, while a majority of those who did see a reduction only 11 percent saw an reduction of 10 percent or more. Translated into modern English from the Orwellian Double Speak the end result of the 1986 ax Reform Bill was negligible.

And while we're at it, let's not forget that the Reagan Administration's remedy to inflation was so shocking that it threw the United States economy into not one, but at least w steep recessions, leading many unemployed Americans to quip at the time that "at least under Carter I at least had a job."

But the worst thing that the Corporate dominated right wingers have discovered is the fact that if you can limit the supply of jobs, that if you encourage the importation of illegal workers (although we suspect there is no such thing as an illegal worker, only illegal employers), and ship American jobs, both blue, and white collar, overseas, you can efficiently dry up the labor pool at home and set the American worker against both, immigrant labor and his fellow Americans.   This of course is not an accident. It is not a coincidence that George W. Bush has continued the policies of Ronald Reagan. It is no accident that this Administration has done everything in its power to further dismantle labor, to undermine worker safety legislation, and to strengthen the hand of big employers, while reducing the constitutional and worker place liberties of the American worker. Like the Reagan Administration before it, the Bush Administration is using a divide and conquer strategy. Continuing deregulation, encouraging tax loopholes for American headquarters that operate over seas, and openly encouraging American jobs to fly East and South to China, India, and Mexico, etc. Again the tactic is obvious.   The Bush administration like the Reagan Administration before it, understands that a prosperous middle class will only encourage instability by daring to think about freedom, liberty, reform, and the rights and well being of others. To prevent this and to maintain strict political and economic order (some might call it fascism) the Powers that Be in Washington and Corporate America have decided that Peace of mind is the last thing that Americans should enjoy.   Instead, they have decided to institute a policy in which the American worker is over-stressed, over-tired, and always willing to find someone else to blame for his or her financial status. The Powers that Be would rather see the typical American take out his frustrations on the people he or she considers below him or herself. Whether it be the poor who are almost invariably blamed for their own poverty, or the immigrant worker, who is scapegoated as a brown-skinned subhuman, or gays and women who are denigrated as perverted or disobedient, the Powers That Be are thrilled to see Americans backstabbing one another instead of taking out their frustrations the leaders and corporate fascists who have created the situation in the first place.

Heaven forbid that we might actually experience a period of domestic and overseas prosperity and tranquility. God forbid that we might actually take all the time, energy, and resources which are currently being used for destructive purposes and use them to create a new Golden Age in America. We wouldn't, after all, want to encourage little tings like education, thinking, reasoning, compassion, and benevolence towards ones fellow man or woman.   Noooo.   We wouldn't want to do that. No. we would much rather declare peace unpatriotic. We would rather promote war and hatred as American values as opposed to true American values such as tolerance, acceptance, and liberty. We wouldn't want to build new schools, new museums, and new libraries, or new theaters and concert halls.   Why would we want to do that when Corporate America would rather build bombs, tanks, and weapons of mass destruction?

It seems to us that we are paying an incredibly high price for allowing the Powers that be to turn us against our fellow human beings.   It seems to us that the price is too high. Too high in waste, to high in blood, too high in death, and too high in the destruction of the human soul. All this because we have been indoctrinated into taking out our hostilities on the other, on those who are weaker or different from us.   In the end we may just realize that we are indeed our brother's and sister's keeper.

"They've started a lot of talk about free people going soft, that we can't take it. That's a lot of hooey. A free people can beat the world at anything, from war to tiddle-de-winks if we all pull in the same direction. I know a lot of you are saying "what can I do? I'm just a little punk. I don't count. We;, you're dead wrong! The little punks have always counted because in the long run the character of a country is the sum total of the character of it's little punks.

But we've all got to get in there and pitch. We can't win the old ball game unless we have team work. And that's where every John Doe comes in. It's up to him to get together with his teammate.

And your teammates, my friends, is the guy next door to you. Your neighbor! He's a terribly important guy, the guy next door. You're gonna need him and he's gonna need you, so look him up! If he's sick, call on him! If he's hungry, feed him! If he's out of a job, find him one. To most of you your neighbor is a stranger, a guy with a barking dog and a high fence around him.

Now you can't be a stranger to any guy that's on your own team. So tear down the fence that separates you, tear down the fence and you'll tear down a lot of hates and prejudices! Tear down all the fences in the country and you'll really have teamwork.

I know a lot of you are saying to yourselves: "He's asking for a miracle to happen. He's expecting people to change all of a sudden. Well, you're wrong. It's no miracle. It's no miracle because I see it happen once every year. And so do you. At Christmas time. There's something swell about the spirit of Christmas to see what it dos to people, all kinds of people.

Now why can't that spirit last the whole year round? Gosh, if it ever did, if each and every John Doe would make that spirit last three hundred and sixty-five days out of the year, we'd develop such a strength, we'd create such a tidal wave of good will, that no human force could stand against it.

Yes sir, my friends, the meek can only inherit the earth when the John Does start loving their neighbors. You'd better start now. Don't wait till the game is called on account of darkness! Wake up, John Doe! You're the hope of the world!"

From the Frank Capra Film Meet John Doe
Written by Richard Connell and Robert Presnell (story) and Robert Riskin (screenplay)

Have a Happy Fourth of July
From the Cast and Crew at
THE COALITION FOR A DEMOCRATIC AMERICA

JESUS ARRESTED SAYS UNIDENTIFIED SOURCE

2007-06-27T16:52:00.001-07:00

JESUS ARRESTED SAYS UNIDENTIFIED SOURCE
By Brandon Alexander Geraghty-MacKenzie
TBR Media

WASHINGTON DC--According to an anonymous source in the Justice Department, Alberto Gonzalez, at the behest of Vice President Dick Cheney, has ordered the arrest and secret trial of Jesus Christ after the beloved Savior issued a statement in which he condemned the Bush Administration for its war on reason and compassion.

"The last thing we need," said the unnamed spokesperson, "is some crackpot talking about compassion and civil liberties when Vice President Cheney wants to rule the world."

The Israeli born Jesus, who is also known as the Prince of Peace and the Son of Man, found himself at odds with the administration in Washington after he delivered a repeat of the Sermon on the Mount in front of the Whitehouse on July 4th of this year.

"We don't like Saviours telling us how to run our business," said Vice President Cheney. "Jesus did what he did, but e think the Neocon idea of bomb now and ask questions later makes a lot more sense than getting your facts straight before you launch an invasion.

Secretary of State Condosleezza Vice agreed. "What has this Christ guy done for us lately?" quipped a clearly irritated Rice. "All he did was peddle a bunch of goods about peace and helping the poor, and turning the other cheek. That kind of s--- sounds good in the Bible but I hope none of our followers took this Christianity drivel seriously. God knows we don't."

This wouldn't be the first time that Jesus and the Administration have found themselves at odds over the Vice President's policies. On April 1 of this year, the Son of Man invited the wrath of presidential Puppet master Karl Rove when he made statements about Rove's physical, philosophical, and spiritual similarities to the late Heinrich Himmler. Rove, predictably enough, was outraged. "Everyone knows that my personal heroes are Machiavelli and Josef Goebbels. Rove told the Washington Press Corps. "And I resent the fact that the bastard child of a teenage child named Mary and a middle aged child molester named Josef should receive more respect than I do." Shortly after last year's incident, Jesus, had been detained for 40 days and 40 nights in an undisclosed location in the Middle East, an act which drew swift and vehement condemnation from various human rights organizations. During that time the Prince of Peace had been denied counsel, while Ann Coulter, the Administration's attack rat and all purpose hate merchant, tortured the benevolent Savior with nude photos of herself and President George W. Bush in Mary Cheney's hot tub.

"It was the most revolting thing that I had ever seen," Jesus said. "I came very close to forgetting that I was the son of God, and not a mindless, hypocritical son of a Bush."

The Lord God offered his understanding. "I always told that kid of mine to turn the other cheek, but I wouldn't blame Him if he turned this bunch of war addicts into a bunch of sex-starved centipedes."

After the latest transgression, the Bush Administration may not be so forgiving. Speaking at a stacked town hall meeting in Phuque-yu-qwik, Wisconsin, President Bush hinted that the Son of Man might be harshly punished.

"Someone needs to ahhhh set this long-haired hippy ahhhhhh straight," Bush stammered. "There's only one Lord and God and ahhh that's Dick Cheney."

Cheney agreed. "we're trying to decide if this should be a public or a private crucifixion," Cheney giggled. "At first we worried about the Fundamentalists, but their belief system is so screwed in the head that you could never call it Christian. I think that the evangelical community will pay quite handsomely to see their prophet get what's coming to him. It isn't as if they are genuine Christians, you know."

Jesus was philosophical. "I have a strange was of coming back," he suggested calmly. "If I were Cheney I'd be taking out insurance--preferably a policy that covers flooding, earthquakes, and eternal damnation."

Cheney responded in his usual quaint, nonabrasive manner. "I don't take kindly to threats," he growled. "And if Jesus thinks he's going to scare me he can go f--- himself."

Faith Based Insanity and the Extreme Court

2007-06-25T15:50:00.001-07:00

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/06/25/43apfaithbased_web.h26.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500531.html?hpid=topnews

Well, if there was any doubt as to whether or not the Supreme Court is dominated by Catholic theo fascists, it was proven today when Judge Sammy Benito ruled along with a 5-4 majority that tax payers can't sue in regards to the President's Faith Based initiatives.

Why don't we come right out and say it. During the reform era of the Catholic Church, during the time of Vatican II in the 1960s, this country was foolishly worried about whether the Vatican would attempt to use it's temporal and spiritual power to control the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. Today, under the leadership of very repressive and very archaic Church leaders those concerns are actually quite valid. The Vatican, including a Pope who once fought for Adolf Hitler and the Nazi war machine, are indeed trying to use their temporal and spiritual power to make American politicians (and judges) tow the line for a Catholic theocracy in the United States. In other words, Americans were wrong to worry about this sort of thing during the time of liberal reforms within the church, but now, with the reactionaries and theo fascists firmly in control in Rome, it appears as if we really do have to be concerned about the Catholic Church as a fifth column threat to our freedoms and basic Constitutional values.

Let's be clear about this. The conservative theocracy in Rome and the liberal values of the founding fathers cannot co exist. One has to go and if I have my way the ones who are going to go--preferably to their own hell in a hand car--will be the increasingly totalitarian Version of Catholicism which is now growing on the American body politic like a deadly and metastasizing tumor.

Who ever would have thought that the day would come when the people, the American taxpayers, who support those black robed bastards on the Supreme Court would be told by their servants that they don't have the standing to challenge their government over the topic of religion. Just what in the hell are these black robed sons of bitches thinking about? Well, I would suspect that they are thinking about a Catholic or at least a Christian theocracy in which those who dare to disagree or not believe are delegated to second class citizenship. and the miserable bastards certainly proved the point today. Moreover they also proved that they have a very limited idea as to what constitutes freedom and an even more limited view as to what constitutes a Constitutional right. On the other hand, they did prove that they're about as American as a Nazi Party in Nuremberg during the late 1930s.

Personally I don't give a damn what foolish mythology people want to follow. But when any faith--be it Catholic or Dominionist, or Fundamentalist, or whatever--tells me, as a tax payer that I don't have the right to use the federal judiciary in this country to protect and defend my non Christian values then they have crossed a line. They are not merely swing their arms and fists. They are swinging my arms and fists so as to punch me in the proverbial nose and for that I will not sit down and be quiet for anyone. Not even the totalitarian bastards on the Supreme Court who claim to love American freedom while they are trying to maliciously and knowingly to undermine those freedoms on a regular basis.

Look at it this way. If they can tell the American taxpayer that he or she does not have the right to bring a suit regarding faith based initiatives what else can they prohibit? What else can they bastardize? How many other important issues pertaining to basic liberty can decalred off limits to the American people? Free speech? The right to assemble? The right to a speedy trial? Habeas Corpus? Oh that's right. I forgot. Those rights are already under attack By George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzalez. How silly of me to forget.

In the meantime,the Supreme Court has revealed itself as the Extreme Court, and if we don't start electing more people from the left to counter the fascist tumors which have taken root in our judiciary we will be the ultimate price when we become a so called "Christian theocracy."

Read Reich wing dicatorship.

The Republishing of THE FOURTEEN CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM

2007-06-23T09:37:00.001-07:00

In light of the fact that many of our essays for the FOURTEEN DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF FASCISM were either distorted or disappeared when the new version of blogger was implemented, we have decided to republish the latest versions of these works on our new blog, essentially restoring on THE COALITION FOR A DEMOCRATIC AMERICA what was lost on the COALITION FOR A REPUBLICAN-FREE AMERICA. Luckily all of the original and revised versions were backed up on various sources so this was not an especially difficult task to perform.

We hope our readers won't find this endeavor to be too repetitive nor too egotistical on our part, but a lot of hard work and long hours of research went into the creation of these pieces, so we decided to republish them on the new blog. Moreover, this blog is about small "d" democracy and since the posts in question deal with the bastardization of and undermining of democracy we thought this would be an appropriate place to revisit them.

In retrospect we probably should have published them in the proper order, with Part 1 at the top and the credits at the bottom, but we are certain that our readers won't mind a little scrolling.

The current members of THE COALITION FOR A DEMOCRATIC AMERICA.