Wikileaks

Here's a novel idea for a rule the federal government should live by. Don't do something you don't want people to know about. The reason for the government-our government-to lie is to keep things from us; not from others, not from foreigners, not from terrorists, but from us. Those who are on the receiving end of what we do secretly obviously already know the secret; it is happening to them. The lie is to keep people in this country from knowing some of the illegal shit we have-and still are-committing around the world.

We can still gather intelligence on other countries without having to plot their overthrow. We should not be in the assassination business. History tells us that an enemy one day is a friend the next. Japan and Germany for two examples. Even Saddam Hussein was once a friend-and to the same people who later tried to kill him. We should not be torturing or having other countires do it for us. It is simply immoral and counter-productive. Besides, as John McCain testified to, we do it to them and they will do it to us.

Lets act for a change above board. Lets not do things we are ashamed to tell others about. I know some will say we are endangering our troops or putting secret agents in harm's way. Hell, Bush II and company didn't mind putting Valerie Plame in danger when it suited their politics. Personnel matters and troop movements can still be information we don't advertise, but if we have troops in a country (Laos and Cambodia during the Vietname War) it should not be something we lie to people in the US about.

The Rule: Don't do something you don't want people to know about.

Government Logic ?

Many in congress say they are worried about Social Security running out of money. So what do they do? They cut funding for Social Security by 2 % next year. How is that suppose to solve the social security problem? These same people complain that the deficit is out of control and will ruin the country. So what do they do? They pass a tax cut bill that will add some $ 800 billion to the deficit. How is that suppose to solve the deficit problem?

Of course, those people are members of the GOP and you can bet that by February they will be looking for ways to reduce social security benefits and finding other domestic programs like education and the environment to cut the heart out of.

Scott Garrett

I don't understand my congressman. He is opposed to the tax cut legislation now being debated in congress because its not a permanent change in the tax laws that would make the Bush era tax cuts the final word on taxation for some time to come. The wealthy are going to get a $ 60,000 to $ 70,000 refund from the federal government this year and Garrett says he wants them to have more. He is also opposed to the legislation because it will provide unemployment benefits to fellow Americans who can't find work; benefits that will provide just enough money to put some food on the table or pay the rent. It seems he only wants to help those who don't need help in the first place and generally have nothing good to say about the federal government. Does he have no sense of humanity? Isn't the role of government to help those in need; to protect the "general welfare". I also don't understand my congressional district that has returned him to office time and again.

Justice?

I came across the following quote in a college magazine recently that had meaning for me. It was about rural society in south west NY state and the acts of two teenage boys who burned up a pick-up truck. "What hungry rage caused them to destroy the hard-earned property of a good man and neighbor? What wild fear caused us to incarcerate one of them, hard-bitten almost since birth, for eight years-longer than some investment bankers and securities traders who stole the savings and retirements of thousands of Americans?"

US Rebellion?

Prior to the recent congressional election, a GOP candidate in Texas said in a TV interview that "if elections did not produce a change in leadership" then "he would not rule out a violent overthrow of the government". The GOP headquarters in the county he was running in said the comment was "inappropriate". Do you think? This individual lost his race to the incumbent who got 70 % of the vote. I see or hear of other comments along the same lines by right wing spokespersons; is there something going on here that we should pay more attention to? I hope not.

Class Warfare

A writer on the op ed page of The Record states that a yearly income of $ 250,000 is only "comfortable", certainly not the income of "Oprah". Where has this guy been spending his spare time? At the country club or the Hamptons maybe but certainly not where most hard-working Americans are spending theirs. Why doesn't he tell the coal miner in West Virginia that an income of a quarter of a million dollars is mearly "comfortable" living? Why doesn't he drive his BMW-second car most likely since the family car is a Land Rover-across vast sections of this country where people who work everyday are living in mobile homes worrying about the next tornado that will blow them to hell and back; tell them how he is having trouble making ends meet on a quarter of a millor dollars a year.

Of course, by noting this I will be accused of promoting class warfare. Hell, we have always had class warfare in this country-like every other country. The reality is however, its the poor and lower middle class who are being made war on, certainly not those who make a quarter of a million dollars a year.

And our federal government-congress and the president-have just staged another victory in that on-going war for those who make a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Industrial Pollution

Does nothing ever change in this country? A major corporation contaminates the ground water causing serious health issues and in some cases death, and after years (I mean years) of struggle by the effected residents a settlement is reached that would barely pay for funeral costs. The Record reports today that the most any one family got from the settlement is $ 34,000. I am not saying we shouldn't be a private sector oriented society, but couldn't they be a little more responsible if they cause harm or a little more careful while they make the millions they do?

(Source: The Record on 12/13/10)

Nuclear War

Cuban former leader Fidel Castro addressed his country's parliament recently and stated his belief that the US and Israel "will launch a nuclear attack on Iran and that Washington could also target North Korea". This would lead to "Armageddon like devastation". Lets hope that is his anti Americanism talking and that he doesn't know something we don't.

(Source: "Fidel Castro warns of nuclear war". The Record on 8/8/10)

Elena Kagan

The Senate confirmed Kagan to replace John Paul Stevens on the US Supreme Court yesterday. All but 5 republicans voted against her. Their opposition is based on the charge that she will be an "activist" judge and make decisions based on her own opinion rather than the law. These same republicans didn't complain when the court ruled in favor of George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore interjecting themselves into what was clearly a state matter. Nor did they say anything about "activist" judges when the court ruled that corporations are "people" under the Citizens United v FTC ruling. On a related note, why are we not arresting BP oil company officials (Tony Hayward for one), for the crimes they committed in the Gulf oil spill? If my negligence led to the death of 11 workers you know where I'd be right now.

General Comments

The Joint Chiefs of Staff-Admiral Mike Mullen-says an attack on Iran would be a bad idea; but an attack is part of a US military plan. He also says that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons is "unacceptable" (He speak with forked tongue; he should be a politician).

The Dutch are pulling their troops out of Afghanistan. They are the first NATO country to do so. The force was only 1900 but the move might be politically significant.

The House passed a spending bill for the Afghanistan operation of $ 33 billion. The vote was 308 to 114. The legislators were "unmoved by the leaking of classified documents that portray a military effort struggling between 2004 and 2009 against a strenghening insurgency" (The Record on 7/28/10). The total spending for the bill was $ 59 billion (does the word pork ring a bell?). The "no" votes came mostly from democrats with the exception of 12.

Miscellaneous Items

The British may have the right idea with their monarchy. The Queen-in this case-represents the country or state. The Prime Minister represents the government. In this system, then, it is possible to oppose the government but remain loyal to the country. The Prime Minister, or in our case the President, is not the country and one can oppose him or her without showing disloyalty to the country. The Queen has no real governmental power so is not a threat to legislative rule or democracy, and I sick and tired of being told because I oppose Bush or Obama I am a disloyal American.

In the US today there are folks who call themselves "Oath Keepers" and pledge to disobey laws they consider to be unconstitutional. In Germany prior to the rise of Hitler there was the "Freykorps" who also held themselves out to be loyal Germans. They both consist of members of the military or police. Can there be other similiarities and is history repeating itself?

Update on 7/18/10. I was sent recently a quote from the late Ronald Reagan that read: "the most terrifying words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help". Pardon me, but what unmitagated bullshit. How about "you have cancer" or "you're fired". The anti government movement in this country can be traced back to RR and he should get no credit for that.

Requirement for President

The US Constitution states in Article II, Section 1 paragraph 6 that "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"... I understand what the phrase has come to mean, and I agree, but if you were a "strict constructionist" like some neo-cons say they are, wouldn't this mean that any citizen of the US who was born "natually" be eligible for the office of President? The Constitution says nothing about being a "native born" citizen. If this be so, then the issue of where Barack Obama-and even Arnold Shwart....oh you know, the "governator"-was born would not be a consideration for service as president. But then again, neo-cons are only strict constructionists when it suits their political agenda.

On another related note; since Barry Goldwater and John McCain were born in territories of the US and were eligible to run, wouldn't someone born in Puerto Rico, Guam, The Virgin Islands and other US territories also be eligible to run?

Birth of Barack Obama

I don't see the issue here. Even if Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii-which the state says he was-he "acquires" citizenship by the fact that his mother was a US citizen all her life and had never lived out of the country prior to his birth. "Acquisition Citizenship" law requires that a US citizen to have resided in the US for a period of 10 years prior to the birth of a child and that 5 of those years be after the citizen's 14th birthday. Ann Dunham-Barack's mother-was 19 years and 2 months old at the time of Barack's birth. She had lived in Kansas and Hawaii for all those 19 plus years. My information comes from google searches of citizenship requirements. I would really like for someone to explain to me the argument that Barack Obama is not a citizen. As for me, I don't see the issue.

Some Items of Interest

The CIA released documents from the Korean War era; they indicate that the agency did not forsee the North Korean attack in June of 1950 nor the entry of the Chinese when UN forces pushed up near the border with China and North Korea. Some spy agency.

In more recent news in South Carolina it seems that a republican legislator wants to know where the winner of the democratic primary-Alvin Greene (the unknown)-got the $ 10,000 filing fee to enter the primary. Greene came out of no-where to win in the open primary; a primary that allows anyone-regardless of party-to vote. Greene will run against Jim DeMint in November.

In the BP oil spill the following statement came from the BP Chairman Svanberg. Svanberg, commenting on Obama said, "he's frustrated because he cares about the small people, and we care about the small people. I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don't care, but that is not the case at BP. We care about the small people"

In the congressional hearings on the oil spill, the heads of 5 major oil companies-including BP-were questioned by congressmen. A Louisanna republican of Vietnamese descent- Joseph Cao-said; "During the Samurai days, we'd just give you the knife and ask you to commit harikari".

(Source: The Record on 6/17/10 and 6/16/10).

New "red" Scare

With all the incidents of "homegrown terrorism" I wonder if we are about to enter another era of looking for "enemies" in all kinds of places. The most recent incident is that with the two who wanted to fly to Egypt and then on to Somalia to join al-Qaeda type groups and kill Americans. The two are Carlos Eduardo Almonte and Mohommed Mahmood Alessa, both of north Jersey. A month ago was the "Times Square Bomber" who was a US citizen of Pakistani origin. Before that incident there was the Fort Hood Army major who killed soldiers there. Before that-a number of years ago-there were the "group of young men, also US citizens raised in NJ, (who) were convicted of plotting to murder soldiers at Fort Dix". If this pattern continues, what will we call it?

(Source: "Web videos offer inspiration to jihadists" by Mike Kelly of The Record on 6/8/10).

Congress Votes

Does the recent vote on a military spending bill make sense to anyone? Republicans voted no on military spending (at least in the circulation area of my local paper). Most likely this was because the bill included a provision to drop the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces. So I guess for republicans it is more important to keep gays out of the military than to support the troops in the field. "Supporting the troops in the field" is the argument I always got when I expressed opposition to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats on the other hand, who should be more likely to oppose military spending and especially the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, voted for a defense spending bill. Most likely because to them political support from the gay community it more important than getting us out of wars they tell us they disagree with. Do any of these people have serious principles?

Approach To Governing

In the news today, the governor of NJ and his Department of Environmental Protection have stated their belief that the state can not afford to continue a water testing program that seeks to identify the level of perchlorate in our drinking water. NJ is, of course, in the midst of a budget crisis of the first magnitude so almost any idea that claims to save tax money will be considered.

Another approach to this never-ending problem of government in any society would be to determine what it is we want done and then figure out a way to pay for it. The present system seems to work the other way; figure out what we have to spend and then fit our needs into that amount. Much of what a government would provide would be agreed to by almost everyone; police, fire, sanitation, education. We should debate the rest and determine the level of each service we want, then determine a way to pay for it. Be that income, sales, property tax or some other means of generating revenue.

NJ Budget

Gov Christie wants ways to cut the state budget. He is planning on taking $ 800 million from education, while giving those making over $ 400,000 a year a tax break. He says he may "sell" the names of the rest stops on the NJ Turnpike. How about this idea governor? Privatize all the rest stops in the state by leasing them out. The new owners could then charge people who stop to use the services. Meters for cars would be a start. The bathrooms could all be coin operated with a higher charge for those who have to have a bowel movement. Let the new owners charge whatever the market will bear for gas (you know, free market is the way to go). A charge could be placed on walking your dog, and a second charge for a "doggie bag" for you know what. The charges for food and coffee could be greatly increased; this could actually help New Jerseyians (and others) lose weight. For those motorists who would resist paying the fee to use the rest stops, the state could increase the fine for stopping along the roadway. This would be a form of liquid littering, and of course littering is illegal. Another benefit of this plan is that the new operators of the rest stops-being private companies-could hire who ever they want. Illegal aliens would be happy to get the work, just don't ask them a question you want an English reply to.

A second option would be for the governor to remove all the signs with his name on them; we should not be paying for his personal publicity. In addition he should remove all those pictures of himself inside the rest stops. The one I visited this past week had a picture of the governor that took up an entire wall.

US dollars in Iraq

Parade Magazine reports on a question it was asked about "billions of US dollars that went missing in Iraq". The answer they provided was, one, it "remains a mystery", two, the money was counterfeit, three, Saddam stole it and lastly, "it's easier to describe the creation of the universe than to sort out that lost money". What a bullshit answer. If Parade Magazine wanted to they could have researched it further and come up with a more complete answer. Seems like media bias to me; and certainly not a liberal one. Is it possible that military/defense spending allows for more money to be stolen by more people than any other type of government spending?

Torture and our Allies

According to The Recond on 3/10/10, the former head of the British spy agency-MI5-said that "US intelligence agencies mislead key allies...about its mistreatment of suspected terrorists...". Eliza Manningham-Buller retired in 2007 and is now in the House of Lords said "...the US deliberately suppressed details of its harsh handling of some detainees, including accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed". This news item-of two paragraphs-appeared on page A-11 on an inside column. It seems the press was trying to hide the story. It is safe to say that our enemies don't trust us; now it seems are friends may have reason not to either.

(Source "British official says US misled allies". Around the World section. The Record 3/10/10).

PS. Would it be truthful to replace "misled" with "lied"?

Money and Congress

The Senate Banking Committee has taken $ 72,753,647 from the "FIRE" section (finance, insurance and real estate) business. The 14 democrats got $ 50,295,559 with Dodd getting $ 13 mil and Schumer $ 15 mil. The 10 republicans got $ 22,459,088. Only democrat Herb Kohl of Wisconsin got less than 6 figures at $ 73,950. This money was received since 1989. The information comes form "OpenSecrets.org" as reported by The Washington Spectator on 3/1/10. How can these politicans be expected to decide objectively on issues affecting these industries?

Defense Spending

The American Friends Service Committee reports that the "US spent $ 976,121,986,000 on the military in 2008, including budgeted funds and 'special supplements' like the one to pay for the war in Iraq. That's $ 1.9 million spent every single minute for war and so-called defense". There fund-raiser letter opened a campaign to raise $ 1.9 million for One Minute for Peace. This figure comes from a newsletter from AFSC I received a few months ago; there was no date on the letter. Some research will be required to check on the $ 976 billion number. It does seem high.

Texas GOP primary

Governor Rick Perry has beaten Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for the nomination of the Republican party for governor of the state. Of interest is the showing of the "tea party" candidate for that office. Debra Medina got 18 % of the vote and was a disappointment to the "tea party" folks. It did not help her cause when she appeared on the radio show of Glenn Beck and said "some very good arguments" could be made "that the US was involved in the 2001 attacks that took down the World Trade Center and killed some 3000 people".

(Source: "Perry turns away Hutchison to capture GOP nomination" by Kelley Shannon of The AP. In The Virginian Pilot on 3/3/10).

What To Believe

On the question of what source of information to believe about stories of Blackwater and DynCorp operations in Pakistan, the following is interesting. "As the saying goes, never believe anything until is has been offically denied".

Michelle Obama"s staff issue.

I recently received a chain e-mail from GOPers in the family claiming that MO had a staff of 24 personal assistants while Laura Bush had only one. I went to "Factcheck.org" for another view. They said; "Michelle Obama's staff was actually no different than that of her predecessor, Laura Bush" MO staff costs $ 1.6 million, while the LB staff cost $ 1.4 million. The chain e-mail was from "TheLastCrusade.org" and posted on "CanadaFreePress", noted by factcheck as a "conservative web site".

Sarah Palin and God

On 1/11/10 it was reported in The Virginian Pilot paper that Sarah Palin said that McCain chose her for his running mate because it was "God's plan". I always thought religious teaching was that God did not play a role in the affairs of man; thus if a war occurs, or a child dies, or a earthquake hits Haiti it was not God's doing. If Palin can say that her being chosen for a role in political affairs was because God wanted it, then does she also believe that other events were also "God's plan"? Was Hurricane Katrina God's doing? Was the Holocaust part of God's plan? Why doesn't someone call her on this? Does she believe that things happen because of some master plan by God?

Conservatives and the Constitution

Conservatives say they believe in a "strict construction" interpretation of the Constitution. We must not read into the document things that are not there. Ok, then, how do they arrive at the decision that a corporation-like GM or MobilExxon-is an individual and thus covered by the first Amendment free speech protection? That sounds like a "loose construction" interpretation to me. These same folks will also say that there is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate health care; a "strict construction" interpretation.

I wish they would make up their minds about the document. But to do so they have to read it first

Political Difference

It is said that liberals think too deeply about issues and are always questioning their "truths". They often see gray areas on issues. Conservatives, on the other hand, don't think deeply at all. They see everything as black or white. They always have ready made answers to all the problems we face-no taxes, less regulation, drill, baby, drill-thus not questioning their "truths". This does not mean liberals are any smarter or intellectual than conservatives: Smart people can be either. The problem for some liberals is that if you are not that intelligent then your liberal beliefs cause inner conflict, confussion and anxiety. You suffer from an inability to adequately defend your "truths". So much easier being a conservative. Just memorize the "talking points" sent to you by the GOP headquarters and you are good to go. (Maybe I am writing this on a down day: let me know what you think)

The Times; they are confusing

President Obama is accused of being too cozy with Wall Street types due to the TARP payments he is continuing to make. He kept Bush's secretary of defense and transportation. He is now going to bat for Bush's Federal Reserve Chairman. He has kept two wars going for the benifit of the US military industrial complex. He and democrats are seen as the "establishment" with GOPers in Massachusetts being elected as anti-establishment. And I have a relative who says Obama is a Marxist. Does any of this make sense?

Corporate Campaign Spending

In the response to the recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign spending, a group of companies have sent letters to Congress asking to be put on a "do-not call list". They don't want congressmen asking for donations or providing fundraisers. They say "members of congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors...". The letters were signed by 40 executives of companies like Playboy Enterprises, Ben and Jerrys, Seagram's, Hasbro (toys), Delta Air Lines, Men's Wearhouse, Quaker Chemical Corp, Brita Products, San Diego National Bank, Met Life and Crate & Barrell.

I would think if companies didn't have to spend money on political campaigns they would have more money to pay their employees or do research or whatever. But now, thanks to this radical right wing supreme court, our congressmen will be more in debt to the big givers than usual.

(Source: of the companies on do not call list. "CEO's ask to be added to Congress' do-not call list" by the AP. In The Virginian Pilot on 1/23/10)

Virginia and the NRA

Now that Bob McDonnell is the governor of Virginia the NRA wants something for their support. The Virginia Citizens Defense League wants three pro-con bills passed. First, a repeal of the ban on carrying concealed weapons in places that serve alcohol. Second, a repeal of a law that mandates only one gun purchase in a 30 day period. Third, make the application process for a permit to carry a concealed weapon easier by the following two changes. One, allow applications by mail, and two, "...elimate any fingerprinting requirements imposed by localities...". Are these people fecking nuts? Tell me how these "restrictions", if they can be even called that, infringe on the "constitutional rights" of gun owners?

(Source: on the VCDL and the law changes comes from "Gun Lobby Excited" on the op-ed page of The Virginian Pilot for 1/19/10/)

Race in America

On this date in 1952 the Professional Golfers Association agreed to allow African Americans to play in their golf tournaments. By the way-ten years prior-didn't we go to war with those who professed belief in a "master race"?

Pat Robertson and Haiti

In response to the recent disaster to hit Haiti, the televangelist Robertson has stated on his "700 Club" radio program that the earthquake is the result of a "...purported pact with the devil". He said the following. "Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh, you know Napolean III and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you, if you get us free from the French'-true story. And so the devil said, 'OK. it's a deal' and they kicked the French out, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free, and ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor". The slave rebellion was 1791 and Napolean III wasn't even born yet, but so what. In Robertson's defense it should be noted that his organization runs "Operation Blessing" which provides humanitarian aid to poor countries-Haiti included. But does he really believe that this earthquake was the result of a 219 year old curse? Is he saying the Haitians brought this on themselves?

I always wonder about those who claim to believe in God, but have the humanity of a door knob.

(Source: On Robertson statement. "Deal With Devil Cursed Haiti Many Years Ago, Robertson Says" by Lauren King of The Virginian Pilot on 1/14/10).

Scott Brown of Massachusetts

Brown is the GOP candidate for the senate seat recently vacated by the death of Edward Kennedy. He is running against the state Attorney General Martha Coakley. A side issue of interest is the fact that in 1982, Brown appeared naked as the centerfold in Cosmopolitan Magazine. His arm covered his private parts. He was 22 at the time. In an op ed piece by Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post she states the following about this issue. "This near-perfect picture (of Brown as a candidate) has a few thumbprints, especially on a certain Cosmopolitan spread for which Brown posed half a lifetime ago trying to raise law school tuition money (sounds like the young lady who wanted to give me a lap-dance and said she was working her way thru college in NYC). The photo, which conceals that which matters, may be a yawn to family and friends, but it's the sort of delicious peek into a politician's past that can't be ignored". Nice justification. I can just imagine what conservatives would say if Brown was a liberal candidate.

(Source: of the Parker quote, "Red star rising in Massachusetts" by Kathleen Parker of The Washington Post. In The Virginian Pilot on 1/13/10)

Reid or Wilson

Republicans want Harry Reid to "step down as majority leader" because of remarks he made about Barack Obama that were printed in a book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. Reid said Obama was a "light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect" in his speech. OK, compare that with republican congressman Joe Wilson who shouted "you lie" to the President during a speech before congress. The House voted a mild "repremand" which 179 members of the GOP opposed. Now they have the balls to call for Reid's resignation. Have these people no shame?

Labels, Again

On 6/20/09 I posted a message about the tendency of conservatives to label those who disagree with them with some negative term. Today an op-ed columnist from the NY Times writes about President Obama in regard to national security and calls him the following; a) "Captain Obvious", b) "President Cool" and c) "No Drama Obama". Sarah Palin in her book-Going Rogue-says that John Kerry is an "elitist loon" (p. 181). She refers to an opponent as "a Birkenstock and granola Berkeley grad"(p. 76). This tendency does not only occur when nationally known political figures are involved; it also occurs on a personal level. A relative has called me all kinds of negative things, most recently an atheist and marxist. Is this an intellectual flaw common to political conservatives?