Teh Irony, It Hurtz...

Checking the news on the interwebs this morning, I came across this little gem: College Republicans to identify liberal professors. Apparently, UT College Republicans feel that their grades were affected more by their political affiliation than, say, their crappy work and (apparent) whining.

I have to say, this is ironic on way too many levels. And, somehow, irony is always lost on Republicans.

First, in the context of the health care "debate," Republicans are the ones accusing Obama of being a fascist-socialest-Hitler-meanie. Yet, wasn't it Hitler and the Nazis (or Stalin and the Communists) who made lists targeting people with different views?

Second, and more importantly, this goes completely against all the stated "ideals" of the Republican Party. I mean, after all, aren't they the people always preaching "personal responsibility" and "independence?" Shouldn't they be overcoming whatever situation life presents without complaining?

Instead, in typical Republican fashion, they commence the victim act. They're never to blame. The "bad" things in their life are always someone else's fault. It couldn't be possible that they earned a lower grade. No, they deserve an A+++, but the evil liberal professors consipired against them. It couldn't be that they used made-up "facts" and failed to adequately defend an argument or idea. Oh no, they were TARGETED.

I'm sick of this BS. If they want to preach personal responsiblity, let them be responsible for their situation. If they want to call politicians and political parties names, they should have their facts about who did what when correct. But, people accept this stupid Republican behavior across the country. The media does the mental gymnastics that allow the perpetrator to cry "victim!" Why would the UT College Republicans expect any different??

SO Frustrated!

So, this is how democracy works, huh? Eight years of presidential ass-kissing and now, now, you want to ask "questions?" Oh, that's right, you're all so afraid of being labeled as part of the "liberal media" that you'll embarrass yourselves on national teevee.

I started off tonight fine. I was going to watch the press conference and then do some cleaning...no big deal. But, one dumbass "reporter" and one dumbass question later, I'm pissed and needing to vent.

Q (paraphrased): Mr. President, WTF are you doing proposing a budget that's not balanced? Are you trying to ruin America?

I figure that's the gist of the question. It's what I heard, at least. And I'm sure others heard it, too. All of a sudden, people are concerned about what federal spending is doing to the deficit. Well, here's what I have to say:

Part 1: CBO (and really any) long term budget projections are bullshit. As we all remember, Clinton inhereted a deficit and ended with a surplus. Bush, famously, inhereted a sirplus and crapped out a ridiculous deficit. Not to mention the fact that the National Debt has DOUBLED in the past 8 years.

So, yea, budget projections are essentially irrelevant. The fact is, responsibility (or the lack thereof) can have an impact on how the projections change. All you critics were so quiet as the deficit projection was growing under Bush, why do you decide to be loud now?

Part 2: Enough already! I'm shocked that people are saying spending on education, health care, and energy are irresponsible. Are they high? Look! Look at where we are! Look at what we've become! America is no longer the place to bring your family to build a better life (unless you're already rich). Irresponsible is starting wars that should never have been started! Where's the outrage? Where were the questions?

It's too late for that now because it's already happened, and we're trying to fix it. Obama is here to undo all the damage so you hypocritical, lying, perverted Republicans can drive a wedge into this nation and use your absurd, underhanded tactics to play to people's fears.

Well, you Republicans had your chance. Remember? You were in power for six years. You did whatever you wanted for six years, and THIS is the outcome. And, what do you do? You filibuster. You don't help. You don't bring solutions. You just bitch and moan and whine and complain. You know what? You're not going to get your way. Your time came and went, and we're picking up the pieces.

If Congressional Republicans actually, truly cared about America and its future, they'd be working towards solutions. But, they listen to people like Rush and Bill-O, and continue this charade of "protecting" America. They foment hate and fear and mistrust, when they are the ones to be feared and mistrusted.

With friends like these, who needs enemies? Take your ball. Go home. America doesn't need people like you.

Stop the Senate 60 Votes lie!

If the Republicans want to filibuster, let them. Let them be accountable to the American people. Let everyone see the Republicans obstructing the governing process and our progress as a nation.

Democrats have a majority in the Senate and we can't let this minority compromise our principles.

On Rachel Maddow, Pelosi specifically said "The Senate is different, they need 60 votes."

No, they don't.

Harry Reid needs to make them get out on the floor and actually filibuster. That would be more embarrassing for them than it would for the Democratic party.

51 votes is a majority. We can't be lead around by the minority and I wish Reid would get his balls out of the lock box and use them!

25 Things

In the spirit of the Facebook wildfire that is “25 things,” I figured I’d share 25 political thoughts, since you probably don’t care that I always sleep in socks or that I eat cereal for dinner at least five days a week.

1. The more I learn about the Republican Party, the less I understand why anyone would want to be associated with such a hateful, backwards, hypocritical group. I’ve heard it best described as “jingoistic masquerading,” but whatever it is, it’s completely based in falsehoods. I’m truly convinced that Republicans are mentally unstable.

2. For the first few months of the primary, I thought Barack Obama was the “token black guy.” I was a big John Edwards fan. Shows you how good my instincts are…

3. I really wish that Republicans would learn the difference between Socialist and Fascist. For reference, George W. Bush’s administration had the underpinnings of fascism.

4. Just to clear up any confusion, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Saying something over and over does not make it true.

5. People need to read the entire Second Amendment before claiming they can carry fully automatic weapons into a McDonalds. (So you don’t have to go looking: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)

6. A flat tax would be the most effective and equitable way to fix the tax problem in this country.

7. It’s the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. Get it right.

8. George W. Bush did not serve his country in Vietnam. Don’t give me any crap about the National Guard. Ask anyone who lived during that time, only people with connections got into the National Guard.

9. The War on Drugs is just an excuse to stoke racial tensions. If we didn’t waste our money and prison space on mandatory sentences for drug offenses, we could actually use that money to aid the communities that need help. But, like Chris Rock said, a new jail is better than old projects.

10. A majority of the prisoners in Guantanamo are not terrorists. There is no harm in bringing these people to US prisons and trying them in US courts. After all, we’ve held crazier people than that before (best reference on this point).

11. Bill, Rush, other right-wing gasbags, listen up: yelling does not make you right. You can yell all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that your information is bad and your conclusions are whack.

12. Sarah Palin is a joke. The nail in the coffin was her teen daughter saying that “abstinence only” education is unrealistic. Life as proof…nice.

13. Speaking of reality, it does have a liberal bias. That’s why conservatives have to work so hard to counter it. Slowing the natural progression of society is hard work that only the supremely stubborn would undertake.

14. I’m convinced that the heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives is the ability to empathize. Liberals can, conservatives don’t even attempt. But, if we had a culture of empathy, I think we’d be less likely to tell people to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” WTF does that even mean?

15. If Freepers were to leave America, where would they go? No other country would allow them to bitch and moan and obstruct the political process the way they do. But, they’d probably get health care.

16. How are Republicans the party of fiscal responsibility? Last time I checked, fiscal responsibility meant spending only what you have, be it a lot or a little. Three Republican presidents have accounted for more than 90% of our debt (check it out). Tax cuts don’t mean shit if you don’t cut spending…which Republicans couldn’t do to save their lives.

17. World War Two was the supreme example of government spending. All those people that were drafted into the military? Government employees. All those factory contracts that put people back to work? Government contracts. Republicans are dim for not figuring this out. Obviously throwing money at Haliburton doesn't have the same effect.

18. I’ve ended friendships over Prop 8. Well, probably more like acquaintance-ships. Either way, I don’t need to be around people who don’t support equality.

19. I support the idea of the death penalty, but I think it’s unworkable with our current justice system.

20. When people want to use the government to regulate your love life and your body, they cannot be the party of small government.

21. This whole debate over abortion and choice is taking place on the wrong terms. It’s not about “if” abortion is going to happen. It will. It’s about the right of an individual to seek medical assistance and make decisions based on the realities of their own situation.

22. Tax cuts for business are corporate welfare. The way to grow a business isn’t through government handouts, but by selling more of your product. You can only sell more of your product if people can afford to buy it. Therefore, if we’re going to cut anyone’s taxes, we should cut those of the people who would most likely spend that money.

23. Supporting our troops has nothing to do with blindly supporting a president. In fact, one of the best ways to support the troops is by keeping out of unnecessary war and providing proper care when they return. Bumperstickers don’t count.

24. George W. Bush’s administration was criminally negligent at best and down right criminal at worst, and no, I will not forget that and “move on.” I want some damn justice to keep this from happening again. Along those same lines, Karl Rove should be arrested. Sure, he’s in contempt of Congress, but he’s also a criminal.

25. I know a number of people who’ve become Democrats as they’ve gotten older. Most of they time, they’ve had an “eye-opening moment” where they realize that the Republicans had them by the nose. Today, I ran into a friend from college that I haven’t seen in five years, and he told me that he ditched the Republicans because he couldn’t stand the “fake machismo.” It’s the small victories that make me smile.

What are you doing here?

That is probably the second most common question I'm asked. People come to my cubicle, see my Obama buttons (two, I'm tasteful) and my picture of Obama and Biden from the convention (not as tasteful, but cool to me), and they immediately forget what they came to talk about, instead asking me "You're a liberal? What are you doing here?"

See, I'm in the Navy and apparently, being a liberal in the military makes me a total freak. I usually just let it slide, but with the new year, and the impending inauguration, I've decided to change my attitude. No more shrugging it off. No. From now on, I'm going to take on these douchebags (nicely,if they out-rank me). As far as I can tell, the only people that have actually defended the Constitution in the past eight years have been liberal. Torture? Conservatives. Wiretapping? Conservatives again? I mean, Bush was the one who said the Constitution is "just a piece of paper." So, fuck conservatives. They suck at defending the Constitution.

I'd like to say that I have no idea why conservatives have felt that they own the military, but that's not exactly true, and this article does a pretty good job of explaining what drives the conservative mind ("fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity"). Well, I'd say that pretty much sums up the military. That, and they can be protected from "the gays." I guess it makes sense that conservatives would be attracted to the military environment. And there's guns, so many guns!!!

The past eight years have been a Bush love-fest. It's gross. He can do no wrong and I've endured way too many "discussions" about how going into Iraq was the right thing to do. But, I can feel the pendulum swinging back in the other direction. For people that have taken the "support the president or fuck off" attitude, they're surprisingly ready to shed that mentality. Ok, it's not surprising, but it's so hypocritical, it makes my head spin!

Well, I've been supporting the Constitution all along. It's not about the President, and it never should have been. So, you want to know what I'm doing here? The same thing I've always been doing here: exercising my right to serve my country and defend the Constitution. If you don't like that, well, fuck off.

Let's Talk About Taxes

So, it's been, what, a week since the "Joe the Plumber" debacle at the debate, and I think it's fair to say that taxes are the most misunderstood issue in an election. Here we are, a nation fighting two wars (which is another issue entirely, but here we are), facing crippling economic slowdown and at an environmental precipice. How the party of "limited government interaction" got us to this point I'll never know, but these are problems where the government is either the only solution (war) or the likely leader of a solution.

I'm not for irresponsible government spending, but something's gotta give. Either government spending must come down drastically or the government must raise more income. What we have now is fiscal malfeasance at its absolute worst.

Now we have Republicans continuing to label Democrats as tax-and-spend. This will be the only time you ever hear me quote Cheney seriously, but "so?" In my view, a fiscal conservative is not someone who says they support small government but then goes and spends more than any administration in history. A true fiscal conservative spends what money they have, regardless of how much it actually is.

But, more importantly, who exactly are we taxing? It's misleading to say that only a certain type of tax scheme is "wealth redistribution." All tax schemes distribute wealth, plain and simple. The idea that somehow the wealth is going to trickle down has been proven false, not once, but twice now.

So, here are my thoughts. Any business person who believes that tax cuts are the best way to grow a business deserves to go under. These excessive tax cuts and rebates for businesses are nothing but corporate welfare. The best, and really only, way to grow a business is to sell more of your product. And, the only way to sell more is if people can buy more. So, doesn't it make more sense to keep the money in the hands of the people who spend it. Instead, with gas and food prices up 300 to 400%, people are struggling to cover their basic needs. They're not buying anything that's not a necessity.

I read a great piece on dkos (that I can't find anymore) that discussed the strength of the economy is in the rate at which money changes hands. It's like comparing the pulmonary system of a couch potato versus that of a triathlete. Right now, this economy is sluggish, slow and out of shape. We don't even have the energy to get off the couch, much less go for a run. And why is that? Probably because the last eight years have not been geared at truly growing our economy. Sure, there were shots in the arm, but we all know that steroids do more damage in the long run. The Bush tax plan was like steroids at the beginning, but the strength wasn't real and now we're suffering from crippling damage.

So, what do we need to do? Well, a good start would be to stop wasting $10-12 billion per month in Iraq and an increasing amount in Afghanistan. And then what? We need to keep the money in the hands of the people who drive this economy. So, rich people, sorry (not really), but you're heyday is over. You didn't hold up your end of the "trickle down" economy theory, so now we're going to go for the "trickle up" theory. I believe that when the many succeed, we all succeed. It's not socialism or communism, it's common sense.

There is a saying in the Navy that goes, essentially, "On the strength of one link in the cable, depends the might of the chain." Well, right now we have a lot of weak links in our economic chain. Strengthening those links would strengthen our economy. It's time to go back to REAL responsible government, a Democratic government.

Objection! Leading the Voter: How the GOP Stifles American Political Debate

I know I’ve said it before, but I just can’t resist it: These people are scared S**tless. What people, you might ask? Well, the GOP, of course. And why are they scared? Because they lose on every issue that is important to Americans today.

It’s unfortunate that the GOP is so scared of true debate. Why must they always ignore the facts, spin the truth, and point fingers at their opponents? It’s tiring, and more importantly, it’s hurting America. The GOP’s smoke and mirrors act is hindering effective debate on important issues and keeps America from making true progress for all.

Maybe you were lucky enough to see the RNC 2008 Critical Issues Survey. If not, it’s definitely worth a peek. And, it shows exactly who has critical “issues” in this campaign (hint: the makes of this ridiculous poll). How ridiculous? Well, let’s preview some of these “fair and balanced” questions:

Shall we start with the economy?

1. Do you think Congress should respond to the economic slowdown with a plan of tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

Hahaha, yeah. OK. Since they sunk a robust and growing economy, I’m sure they’d do wonders for a recession.

2. Do you believe our economy will grow if we cut taxes and put more money in the hands of hardworking Americans who pay taxes?

Honestly, where to start with this one? Regardless of what one believes, supply-side economics don’t work.

4. Which of the following factors do you feel is most adversely affecting the economy in your area?
Burdensome Taxes
Severe Government Regulations
Unstable Real Estate Market
Growth of Government Spending
Threat of Terrorism
Unpredictable Fluctuating Fuel Prices
Other

Oh geez! Terrorism? Yes, I’m afraid of being the victim of a suicide bomber at the market. Oh wait. I’m in America, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Gotta get that fear mongering in…

10. Should “pork-barrel” spending be completely eliminated?

Like the word “lobbyist,” “pork-barrel” and “ear marks” are getting a bad rap. And from the Republicans of all people. The most irresponsible party lampooning their own failures. Ugh. Let’s talk about the reality of ear-marked money and the abuses that the Republicans have committed.

Enough with that, let’s move to something cooler: (dun dun dun) National Security!

2. Should America surrender in Iraq regardless of the consequences in the Middle East?

Surrender? Who’s surrendering? Republicans are war-mongering, plain and simple. Nothing like stifling the debate over each candidate’s plan (well, Obama’s at least. McCain doesn’t have a coherent idea of what to do in Iraq…or Afghanistan).

3. Do you agree with Democrats who believe national defense spending should be slashed in order to fund domestic programs?

What Dems are doing this? As far as I can tell, they give Bush everything he wants on Defense spending…including no oversight. C’mon people, actions speak louder than words. Let’s talk about what people are actually doing.

5. Do you believe we should set a public date for withdrawing from Iraq even if it undermines our troops in the field?

“Even if it undermines our troops in the field?” Well, when you put it like that, I guess not. But, considering that Bush has done more to undermine our troops and our efforts, AND the Iraqis have asked for a withdrawl timeline, I would say, yes, I support the timeline.

These are some bad fucking questions. It makes me sad looking at them because it’s like watching a democracy die. But, we still have two more sections to conquer.

Now, on to Other Issues.

1. Should we appoint judges who will interpret the law instead of liberal activists who will make new laws from the bench?

“Liberal activists,” like who? You and me? We are talking about judges, right? Ok, just wanted to clear that up. Now, the SCOTUS isn’t my area of expertise, but I can see very clearly that the GOP only has intentions of politicizing the bench and not actually appointing people who are independent thinkers. Way to obfuscate the question, GOP! Gold star!!

2. Is it critical for the U.S. to develop alternative sources of energy and find new supplies of oil in order to slow inflation and keep fuel affordable?

Huh? How many questions are you trying to ask here? And, even if I say yes, it doesn’t mean I’ll agree with your plans. I think most people would say yes, but there’s nothing in here about “how.”

3. Do you think we should work to give parents with children trapped in failing schools more choices to help their children have a better future?

Trapped? Really?! No way of escaping? Wow, that does sound pretty serious. Well, I guess I agree, but one question, why not work to improve these schools? I think the last thing the GOP came up with was NCLB, so I’m going to say that their education “solutions” are nothing of the sort.

6. Do you think that forcing every American into a socialized national health care system is the best way to deal with uninsured patients?

Wow, this is a pretty serious statement. Too bad that’s not what Obama is talking about. Of course, reality doesn’t matter to the GOP. But, I wonder how the uninsured would feel about this. My guess? They’d love to have some guaranteed insurance. Just a guess, though.

And now the final section (and the one question that reveals their fear): Campaign Strategy.

3. Are you concerned about the vast sums of campaign funds being stockpiled by the Democrats and their liberal allies?

Haha, yup. The GOP doesn’t know what to do now that they’re losing the money race. They all hate their candidate, so even his best month pales in comparison to the Democrats. And they are crapping their pants. McCain even has to compete in his home state. They are on the defensive and they know they’re going to face huge losses.


So, of course, why not stifle the debate and twist the facts? Honestly, I’m surprised there were no race questions in this poll. But, there are many more gems available, if you can stomach it.

Elite? You Bet! And I Don't Care

I’ve been sitting on this idea for a little while. I just really didn’t know where to start, but “luckily” the neo-cons came to the “rescue.” I was thinking about elitism and how to handle it, when Karl Rove pathetically attempted to paint Obama as an arrogant elitist (“You know, he’s that guy at the country club…” No Karl, we don’t know people at the country club, you do.). Ha! Karl Rove, the mind behind the permanent campaign and the worst presidency in history. Maybe Karl should remember the old saying, “when you point a finger at somebody, three more point back to you.” In his attempt to brand someone as elitist, Rove demonstrated just how arrogant and elite the right wing has become. But, when you get right down to it, the people running for president are elite. What we’re really talking about these days is what kind of elite we want in power.

I’m not sure where this anti-elitist idea came from. Why do people want the “leader of the free world” to be just like the guy down the street? People understand that some people are not athletic, not everyone can sing or dance or draw. We happily chalk these up to “natural ability.” Why would politics be any different? I know, I know, politics is about the people, about ideas, and everyone can have those. Well, I’m going to lay out the truth: a lot of people are stupid. A lot of people (obviously) don’t understand the complexities of government, and even the smart ones get it wrong. It takes a special person, with a certain mix of smarts and savvy to be successful in America’s political jungle.

Here’s another secret that the GOP doesn’t want you to know: the men that founded America were highly educated, wealthy and intelligent. They weren’t the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. They were lawyers, judges, scientists, physicians, plantation owners and financial giants. Many were known beyond their communities, a rare feat in that time. They were elite. Or, to put it another way, do you really think that the average person could write and lead the greatest experiment in individual freedom and self-determination in history? I thought not. I certainly don’t want Larry the Cable Guy writing (or rewriting) the Constitution.

And yet, this election year, the charges of elitism are already flying. Multi-millionaires each claiming that the other is “out of touch” with the cares of the average Americans. It’s ludicrous! But, more importantly, it’s a superficial waste of time. The question shouldn’t be who is more elite, but instead, who will work for the elite and who will work for the average citizen. And, with W as our guide, it’s quite obvious that Republican policies are geared towards the wealthy. Well, “geared towards” may not be strong enough. “Specifically written for and solely benefiting the wealthy” is a better way to describe these failed policies.

I guess the question you should be asking is: What kind of elitist do you want? Do you want someone who was born into privilege, handed the best off all worlds and then married into millions? Someone who feeds of the wealth of his wife’s father? Someone who acts for the rich because they made him who he is now? Or, do you want someone who came from humble beginnings, worked his way to success, and is the epitome of the American dream? Someone continues to work for the people and continues to protect the American dream? Being elite and caring about the average American are not mutually exclusive. Let’s ensure we elect a president who believes in the dream because he is living the dream.

The Republican Pro-Family Myth

As we get into the meat of this election cycle, we will once again be subjected to the biggest Republican lie. No, not that they are the leaders in efficient, balanced government (the past seven years have pointedly contradicted that lie). And no, not the one about how they support the troops (unless you count multiple deployments, inadequate training and equipment and selling out to private contractors as support). No, this year we will once again suffer through this nauseating sound bite: The Republicans are the party of family values. Ha! Personal conduct of Republicans aside, at least for now, the fact remains that the Republican platform is decidedly anti-family.

Let’s look at this from the beginning. The Republicans have the gall to use the phrase “pro-life,” thus framing the debate in their favor. But, the issue isn’t the act of abortion because that will happen regardless of legality. The issue is choice, which is why the flip side is “pro-choice.” For a party that claims the federal government is too involved in our personal lives, this argument is non-sequitur (also, for a party that supports the death penalty to be somehow labeled as “pro-life” is a ridiculous, hypocritical joke).

There is no legal reason to ban abortion. Until we can agree on the definition of life and science (which Republicans hate) can determine when life begins, abortion is not murder. If your religion discourages abortion, fine. Don’t do it. However, that is not reason enough to prevent others from making that choice. Republicans will try to paint Democrats as giddy about abortion and excited at the prospect, but in reality, Democrats are simply trying to protect the right of Americans to choose what is best for their lives. After all, most reasonable people would agree that bringing a child into a situation where it cannot be properly cared for is an action with much more far-reaching consequences.

But, if you still believe that Republicans are pro-life and pro-family, then they must have other pro-family ideas, right? So, I guess the first thing about being pro-family would be ensuring that all people have access to proper health care. If they’re pro-life, they must support healthy life and access to health services. Wrong. Republicans are adamantly against Universal Health Care. In fact, they are against any legislation that would increase the standard of Health Care in America. Even though numerous studies have shown that the US lags behind the industrialized world (37th as judged by WHO) and has the highest rates of preventable death among 19 industrialized nations (as judged by US Journal Health Affairs), the Republicans would not want to do anything that would jeopardize the profit margin of health insurers and pharmaceutical companies. I don’t know about you, but the fact that more than 47 million Americans go without basic health coverage doesn’t sound pro-family to me. The fact remains that dozens of countries have managed to provide basic services for their people without going bankrupt. The US spends more than any other nation on health care and for what? These abysmal rankings? The Republicans have privatized the health care industry for the benefit of their corporate masters, not once thinking of the American people.

Perhaps a pro-family party would consider universally available day care as a part of its platform? After all, Republicans love that Americans work more than almost every other nation on earth, so they would probably support policies that allow parents to work more. Nope. Except for programs like Head Start, which the Republicans have cut-down each year, there is no plan to support working parents. Annual costs for daycare in America run up to $10,000, an outrageous sum and one that working Americans cannot manage to pay. If America had universally available daycare, rates could be based on income and ability to pay. I’m not even talking about free (or as Republicans will have you believe: Socialist), I’m talking about affordable. And, universally available daycare would pay for itself in the end. Children would be better prepared for school, which would improve drop-out rates and ease the burden on teachers by ensuring all children have basic skills by the time they are school aged. Not to mention the fact that access to proper nutrition cut down on many future health issues. And parents aren’t mandated to send their children, but the option is always available. Now, that is pro-family policy, and surprise, it’s not supported by Republicans.

Perhaps another family friendly policy supported by Republicans is equal pay for women and minimum wage that is a living wage? As we all know, there is an increase in the number of single mothers and, 30+ years after the women’s equality movement, women are still facing pay discrimination. Additionally, women are more likely to be working hourly-wage jobs, so Republicans must support initiatives to ensure that women are paid equally and that minimum wage is a living wage? Unfortunately, no, Republicans don’t support these ideas. They believe in the free market setting wages. Yes, I can see where this would be misleading, since markets fluctuate. But the reality is that in the past seven years, real wages for American have decreased by $1,000, and this during a supposed economic growth period. Well, at least CEOs are doing well. In 2007, the average CEO earned more than 367 times the average worker, not including the approximate $438,342 in unpaid “perks.” This is up from 1989 when CEOs earned 71 times the average salary. And, just in case you’re wondering, the average hedge fund manager earned $657.5 million in 2006, 16,000 times the average salary of $40,000. So, Republican policy towards wages basically amounts to pay the rich, burden the poor, since Americans are shelling out thousands for heath care, daycare, schools, etc. Unfortunately, we’ve seen what this free market policy does for real American wages. Nothing. Corporations won’t pay their people more or equally unless it’s mandated by the government.

Oh, schools! We haven’t even mentioned those yet. I would say that the bedrock of a pro-family policy must be education for the children, right? How can someone be more pro-family than by supporting quality education? One of the greatest American ideas was that public education would be available to all. Lately, and by “lately” I mean “under W’s reign of terror,” quality education has fallen by the wayside. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has done nothing to address the quality of education, nothing to ensure that American children are prepared for the future, nothing to ensure that children are getting the attention they need. It’s a one size fits no one failure. Special needs children are placed in classes with regular students and no aide because NCLB mandates 100% passing. Teachers are forced to “teach the test” instead of teaching the subject. This standardized test mess is not helping anyone, and it’s hurting our schools and our teachers. American students continue to fall in world rankings, thus making them less prepared for college, less able in the work force and more prone to losing their jobs overseas (because corporations want to hire the most skilled workers).

Additionally, college costs are on the rise, in both public and private universities. The year-to-year increase is about 6%, which is shocking considering that the average wage increase is less than half of that. More and more students are finding college out of reach, and parents cannot save enough to keep up with the runaway costs. I’m not saying that the government needs to foot the bill for every person’s higher education, but it needs to get creative. One great suggestion is a School for Service program that would operate like the military’s ROTC. People could receive scholarships in exchange for years of government service (currently ROTC students owe the military at least four years and service academy graduates owe at least five, depending on the service selected). This would also help bolster the dwindling ranks of public servants. There are ways to make college affordable and accessible, but under the current Republican policies, college is just another way for the rich to make more money from the poor.

My final note about pro-family policies is probably the most controversial, but the most necessary. Family planning services and sexual education are the keystone to a healthy, successful family, but Republicans keep shunning this topic as too taboo. Let’s end the prudeness and get realistic. We need to give our children the best information on the subject possible. Abstinence-only education cannot trump biology. Making family planning and sexual education resources available does not encourage people to have sex. We’re hardwired to have sex, so no safer-sex tools are going to make the inevitable more likely. But, right now we are facing the first increase in teen pregnancy and STDs in almost two decades, and lack of information is the culprit. Being pro-family means having the fortitude to address family planning and sexual education. Purposely keeping people ignorant is not pro-family.

Republicans think that being pro-family means supporting a radical Christian agenda which flies in the face of the Constitution, giving hundred-dollar tax credits to solve thousand-dollar problems, and letting the free market and tax loopholes set working wages, without regard to the actual consequences. Being pro-family means addressing the needs of real American families: health care, child care, education and wages. These are the issues that Republicans will attempt to distort and spin in their favor, but the reality is that their policies are decidedly anti-family. Bottom line: Republicans only care about you until you’re born. After that, they hope you make it long enough to become a cog in their war machine.

If McCain Wins, America Loses

If we elect John McCain, America will demonstrate how socially backward, morally bankrupt and politically inept it has truly become. Maybe Republicans want us to vote on who is more patriotic, which is completely subjective. I say that a flag lapel pin doesn’t make a patriot if that person is willing to send hundreds of thousands to death in a false war and simultaneously tear down the very laws that make us free. But, that’s just my opinion. Maybe they want us to vote on who would have the ability to provide cheap (and crappy) beer to America. Keep us drunk to keep our minds off the misery that is Bush’s reality. I guess McCain would win that contest, but as for the actual election, there is too much at stake to waste a vote on John McCain.

First, on the issues of the economy, McCain has continually demonstrated that he does not, in fact, know anything about how our economy actually works. Though he has shown that he is willing to accept how corporate lobbyists want our economy to work. I think this is the most important fact when it comes to McCain’s economy: McCain’s economic plan does not budget for the war in Iraq. Does not even mention it. Does not believe in accounting for the single greatest expenditure in American history. Hello?! For the man who is an ardent supporter of this war, wants to be in the country for, well, ever, and wants to go to war with Iran, China, North Korea, Russia, and probably Venezuela, this budget is a joke. All it does is fling money at wealthy individuals and corporations without acknowledging the reality of our current situation.

So, if that doesn’t scare you, here’s more. We all know that McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts. Why? Because they don’t give enough to the 99.9% of people that actually make up America. Now, he’s for them. Hm, sounds like someone sold out to the ridiculous neo-con perspective (I’ve got mine, screw everyone else) to get the Republican nomination.

And now McCain is pushing a suspension of the federal gas tax, saying it would ease gas prices by 20% (in reality, it’s only 5%, but we know McCain no longer operates in reality). What does he think people are going to do when gas is $3.32 vice $3.50? Yea, I’m not planning that road trip yet, and neither is the rest of America. A suspension does absolutely nothing to address the true cause of these inflated oil prices, corporate greed. Additionally, the federal gas tax goes to support and repair our highways, which are in dire need of maintenance. Not to sound morbid, but maybe McCain should ask the victims of the Minneapolis bridge collapse if they support taking money from highway repair. He would be putting even more Americans at risk of such a tragedy.

In case we weren’t convinced of the utter failure of supply-side economics, there is the sticky little problem of the current economic downturn being “rescued” be demand side policies. Give the people money and they will spend it. Of course, that will only happen if they aren’t in debt already. But, thanks to Bush’s economic policies, we all are. Tax cuts won’t solve it. Deficit spending won’t increase consumer confidence. People will spend money if they feel secure, but right now, we are barely keeping our heads above water trying to cover the basics, not to mention retirement and/or higher education for the future generations. We need a government that will implement policies that help us, and McCain’s policies do anything but.

But, maybe the economy isn’t you’re thing. Maybe you’re more of a rule of law kind of person. Well then, McCain isn’t your guy because he definitely does not support the rule of law, the bedrock of American principles. Foremost is his support for the war in Iraq, which we know was started over lies. However, that doesn’t matter to him. What matters to him is that Americans keep fighting, regardless of whether or not we have a goal or a reason.

Then there’s the troublesome fact that McCain continues to support Bush in all his efforts to restrict the freedoms that make us Americans (those same freedoms that people are fighting and dying for, I assume). And the most important of these would be the Writ of Habeas Corpus, otherwise known as, the ability for anyone who is jailed to appear before a judge and learn why. Now the Constitution says that this cornerstone of freedom may only be suspended in times of “rebellion or invasion,” but Bush just wanted to get rid of it all together. And, thanks to the Republican Congress of 2006, it’s gone. Why worry about the limits of the law when you can just change the laws? Needless to say, I’m more than a little concerned about the serious neutering of the Constitution that has taken place under Bush and that McCain promises to continue.

However, I doubt that these issues will be brought to the attention of the general public. Why would we want to talk about things like economic security and truly protecting freedom (as well as health care, education, the environment, corporate graft, political corruption, the real war on terror, social security, civil rights, I could go on and on)? Why would we want to discuss the issues when we can talk about flag lapel pins and who staffs more lobbyists? Well, probably because the media, following the lead of the Republican Party, is socially backward, morally bankrupt and politically inept. They will focus on God, guns and gays; they will focus on fear and on trivial non-issues to keep us from seeing how truly pathetic American politics has become. Unfortunately, I’m not sure enough Americans will figure it out on their own to keep McCain out of the White House. After Wednesday night’s debate, I saw how the media is going to hand the election to McCain, I just can’t figure out why. If John McCain wins, America will lose.

McCain the Next 'Honest Abe'? Highly Doubtful.

John McCain claims that he is a proud to be a Republican in the tradition of “Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.” Knowing what I do about Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan, I am more than skeptical of McCain’s claim (except for the Reagan part). And, knowing what I do about McCain’s general level of knowledge (low), I am assuming that if someone were to ask him to compare himself to Lincoln and Roosevelt, he would have no clue where to start. And, just a note for his speech writers: before you write something for your candidate, make sure he can back it up when you’re not there.

Since this is kind of long, I’m going to have to do it in two parts. I’ve decided to leave Reagan out because we can all remember his policies, and Reagan was no Lincoln or Roosevelt either. I’ve highlighted some governing philosophies of Lincoln, and we’ll see if McCain is following his “tradition.”

It’s important to note that Lincoln was a Washington outsider. Lincoln spent only two years in the House of Representatives and took a ten year hiatus before he ran for President. Lincoln also had no military experience. Abraham Lincoln highlights:

• In 1846, he spoke out against the Mexican-American, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory."
• Lincoln did not support war for personal gain or presidential legacy. McCain has solidly supported Bush’s war and delusions of military glory.



• After declaring "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just," Lincoln became a political liability and chose not to run for re-election.
• Lincoln spoke out against injustice, regardless of the consequences. McCain used to speak out, but now he only says what the party tells him to say.



• However, in 1854, Lincoln returned to politics in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which expressly repealed the limits on slavery's extent as determined by the Missouri Compromise.
• Lincoln was involved in politics to promote justice and the ideas of the founders, not for personal gain. McCain does not support equal rights for all Americans.



• Lincoln is well known for ending slavery in the United States. In 1861 – 1862, however, he made it clear that the North was fighting the war to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Freeing the slaves became, in late 1862, a war measure to weaken the rebellion by destroying the economic base of its leadership class.
• When Lincoln had to fight a war, he had sound principles. He did not fight war based on personal feelings or philosophy. Again, McCain supports endless crusades based on the mistaken ideas of a few.



• In 1863, when Lincoln saw support for his war wavering, and people were disturbed by the draft, he knew he had to make a statement to win back the people. Hence, his decision to go to Gettysburg and urge the Union to highly resolve that the dead there "shall not have died in vain" was Lincoln's way of saying that if the Copperhead peace democrats get their way, then the men who there gave the "last full measure of devotion" will have done so for no reason at all. In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln was proposing this question: what would these men who died for this cause want us to do--quit now or finish the job? How the country answered this question would determine the 1864 election.
• Public support in a time of war is always hard to maintain in the face of high casualties. And, we’ve heard Bush say that the soldiers who’ve died in Iraq will not die in vain. And that giving into calls for peace would make the whole effort in vain. So what’s the difference? Well, for starters, Lincoln was fighting a war to protect the integrity of American, and it had a clear definition of success: The southern states return to the United States of America. In Bush’s war and with McCain’s support, the Global War on Terrorism has become a quagmire with no clear goals or definition of success. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so all those that have died have died in vain because Bush and McCain have chosen not to pursue the real terrorists who harmed America.



• Even before the war ended, Lincoln was actively pursuing a reconstruction strategy. Determined to find a course that would reunite the nation and not alienate the South, Lincoln urged that speedy elections under generous terms be held throughout the war in areas behind Union lines. His Amnesty Proclamation of December 8, 1863, offered pardons to those who had not held a Confederate civil office, had not mistreated Union prisoners, and would sign an oath of allegiance.
• Lincoln understands that a solid strategy needs to be in place if the region is going to rebuild. He did not tear down the system of government and replace it with partisans. He allowed the people to continue to govern themselves. McCain has supported the complete destruction of Iraq and the installation of Bush partisans, which has not helped the reconstruction effort.



• Besides the war, Lincoln took a hands-off approach to legislation, where he allowed Congress to write the legislation and he vetoed only those bills that threatened his war powers. Thus, he signed the Homestead Act in 1862, making millions of acres of government-held land in the West available for purchase at very low cost. The Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act, also signed in 1862, provided government grants for agricultural universities in each state. The Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864 granted federal support for the construction of the United States' First Transcontinental Railroad, which was completed in 1869. Other important legislation involved economic matters, including the first income tax and higher tariffs. Also included was the creation of the system of national banks by the National Banking Acts of 1863, 1864, and 1865, which allowed the creation of a strong national financial system. Congress created and Lincoln approved the Department of Agriculture in 1862, although that institution would not become a Cabinet-level department until 1889.
• In his legislation, Lincoln showed that he supported a strong government. He supported the first income tax and higher tariffs. I don’t know if McCain could be more of a polar opposite on this issue. Lincoln also supported government grants for education, and large federal projects for infrastructure. McCain, like Bush, supports only private, for-profit industry. Additionally, Lincoln supported a growing federal government, but supported by the higher taxes and tariffs. This is where I believe McCain is more like Reagan; he says he supports small government, so he reduces taxes, but continues to expand the federal government without the necessary funds. Lastly, Lincoln did not meddle in legislative affairs or veto based on his personal beliefs. McCain has promised more Bush leadership: Approve only what he personally believes in, make no compromises or attempts to see an issue from the majority’s point of view. From what McCain has promised, he could not be more opposed to Lincoln’s governing style.



• Lincoln largely relied on the Calvinistic "doctrine of necessity" and not organized religion to guide his beliefs. Lincoln’s religious skepticism was fueled by his exposure to the ideas of the Lockean Enlightenment and classical liberalism, especially economic liberalism. Consistent with the common practice of the Whig party, Lincoln would often use the Declaration of Independence as the philosophical and moral expression of these two philosophies.
• This may be the most important point because it talks to governing and leadership style. Lately, the Republicans have come to be dominated by the Christian Fundamentalists, but this was not what the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln intended. Lincoln based his beliefs on Enlightenment-era philosophies, not religion. The Declaration of Independence was his guiding document. Lincoln believed that America’s destiny was to be shaped by the principles of its founding, not by the Bible. McCain has promised to turn this nation over to the Christian Extremists, which is not something Lincoln would ever do.
  
  
  From these ideas, I can only conclude that Lincoln was a man of great principle. He believed in truth, justice, and enlightenment. When he had to fight, he did it judiciously, and based in solid principle. When he led America, he thought about what was best for the nation, not just for his supporters. Lincoln guided this nation through a time of great turmoil, and while he was not perfect, he was thoughtful. McCain promises to be none of these. McCain is a war monger who will continue the harmful, un-Constitutional policies of President Bush and the Christian extremists. If any candidate in this race is like Abraham Lincoln, it is Barack Obama, which these highlights make very clear. McCain should be ashamed for trying to degrade the memory of a good president for his own political gain!
  
  Coming soon: Is McCain a Roosevelt “Rough Rider?”

The CIA Director Said What?

We all know that this administration has an agenda. The recently released Department of Defense study not linking Iraq and 9/11 has made perfectly clear that war is the lifeblood of the current administration. War at all costs. And, while the war in Iraq is the current battle ground of this election year, I believe that we need to watch what is being said about Iran. We are being set up, and we need to confront these lies before they drag us, and the next president, into another costly war. In December 2007, a National Intelligence Estimate was release that said Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, yet we have been bombarded by administration officials who continue to say otherwise.

On "Meet The Press" this Sunday, the Director of the CIA said that he personally believed that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons. He acknowledged the NIE released in December 2007, but he immediately launched into a disqualification of the report, the intelligence, and Iran. And, Hayden isn't the first official to make these same remarks. Last week, Cheney said that Iran may be seeking nuclear weapons. Of course, he could have also said "probably not" or "we have no evidence of," but instead he continue to push his party's agenda of constant, costly war. And, just days after the NIE was released, Bush said "the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world." And who could forget Republican presidential candidate John McCain singing "Bomb Iran" during a campaign stump? I've tried, but I can't.

So, let me get this straight, even though 16 US Intelligence agencies concur that Iran is not working to produce a nuclear weapon and has not been working on acquiring a nuclear weapon for more than four years, the Bush administration continues to try and sell us another war based on false evidence? Even though the Intelligence agencies are stacked with Bush supporters, even they couldn't tell him what he so desperately wanted to hear? Even though the evidence is right in front of him, he can casually brush it aside for his "feelings"? No. I will not accept this. I will not accept more lies, and more officials who push the party line over truth. I will not accept a candidate who sings and dances to sell death and destruction. Now is the time for every American to demand that our leadership respect the truth of the world we live in: It may be dangerous, but picking fights won't make anyone safer. The officials who continue to lie to the people about Iran should be ashamed by the way they throw our credibility into the wind. I will not go to war based on their feelings, and neither should any other American.

Republicans Are the REAL Terrorists

Everybody prepare to run to the hills! If Obama wins the nomination, the terrorists will certainly celebrate in the streets by slaughtering thousands!

Please, this is such a line of crap that the GOP has managed to sell. And truly, they are the ones who are terrorizing the world (feigned shock). They have engaged in an illegal war on false pretenses. They’ve caused the death of hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians, millions of refugees, and they knowingly send young Americans to die a horrific death in a foreign land. They have turned an admittedly suppressed nation into a battle ground between god knows how many players. They demand that other people conform to their idea of democracy while they desecrate the democracy of their own country. They spread lies about their opposition and attempt to stifle any free speech and debate.

The thing that makes the least sense in the whole Republican fear mongering machine is that they equate liberals to terrorists. Now, the Islamic extremists that Bush is fighting are religious CONSERVATIVES! They’re conservative! They’re religious nut-bags like Hucakbee, Buchanan, Falwell, Haggard, etc. There is no liberal Islamic terrorist wing! So, for Republicans to imply that liberalism is a threat to world peace takes a complete suspension of reality and facts. But, apparently, they’re very good at that.

The terrorists would be more apprehensive of a Democratic administration because they know that the Democrats are interested in catching the actual terrorists, like Osama bin Laden, who is still roaming free somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They know that the moderate Muslims would have a backing in the formation of a new government in Iraq. They know that they will receive welfare from Bush. That forming a new government would actually be up to them and that the US won’t back their civil war. Bush continues to egg them on by being obstinate, pugnacious, and wrong.

Now, McCain, Rove and the rest of the neo-conservatives would be right about one thing. Terrorists would celebrate the end of the fake justice of the military tribunals, Guantanamo, and the secret CIA prisons. Of course, so would most of America and the rest of the civilized world. So, between a return to justice and an end to the hostilities in Iraq, the terrorists would be back to fighting themselves instead of America.

Bush has single-handedly done more to create terrorists and breed hostilities towards Americans than any Islamic extremist could have ever hoped to do. Aside from the lies that got us into Iraq (and that’s a big aside), look at how poorly he continues to handle Afghanistan. The training ground of and host to the planners and perpetrators of 9/11 has largely been ignored. And, surprise, the Taliban are resurgent. But, for some reason, that’s NATO’s problem? I’m not following that logic. And then there’s his bellicose rhetoric on Iran. Even after the NIE determined Iran had stopped enriching uranium years ago, he and his cronies continue to push the idea that Iran is developing weapons to destroy humanity (I suppose Bush thinks that’s his domain, so he’s offended by anyone else who might want to do that). They say, “may be,” when they should really say “probably not” and “we have no evidence of.”

And now we have McCain, who used to be semi-independent. But, he continues to sell the lies that were manufactured by the neo-cons. He continues to champion Republican terrorism, and will continue to make America a target for future terrorist attacks. The best policy for America is one where we help the world, not destroy it.

Exporting Imperfection

I’m going to start out with a few questions:
How many people here think the United States of America has a perfect government?
And, how many people here think that our government has always been perfect?
Do you agree that America has achieved separation of church and state?

My answer to all of these is unequivocally: No.

I’m not saying that America is a failed state, but it’s taken us over 200 years to get where we are. Why would we expect a country with no history of Democracy to be able to establish a constitution in a matter of years?

Neo-cons and Bush supporters always find it so convenient to gloss over the history of Democracy in the US. It helps their arguments. However, I like to start with the fact that before we had the glorious and ground breaking Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation. Oh boy, that failed miserably! So, America struck out at its first attempt at self-governance (don’t mention that to the lemmings. They don’t like to hear things that contradict what they already believe). The Constitution was definitely a hit, but it wasn’t a home run. Remember that whole part about only white, male, land owners over the age of 21 could vote? Hmmm, doesn’t sound very representative to me, but that’s just me. Not to gloss over the issues of slavery, civil rights, women’s rights, voting age, income taxes, citizenship, etc, but the 27 amendments to the Constitution prove that Democracy in America is a continually evolving process. Democracy in America will never be perfect (in part because there is a strong push by the neo-cons to keep it imperfect). And, in the past few years, we have seen legislation that actually infringes on our Constitutional rights; our rights to privacy and protection from unlawful search, our freedom from torture, our freedom of religion, are all being legislated away by a neo-conservative government with a not-so-secret agenda of consolidation of power.

Additionally, I will argue that America has never completely separated church and state. After all, we have federal holidays on Christian holy days, right? And Truman added “under God” to the pledge in 1954, right? While this is minimal, and America is a mostly Christian nation, I believe that it makes forcing another nation into separation of church and state a “do as I say, not as I do” argument. I find Sharia law difficult to stomach, but that is because I do not believe that it is an honest interpretation of Islam. Again, that’s just me. Who am I to say that no nation is allowed to use religion to shape their laws? I can’t. In different cultures, they may be comfortable with the idea of church and state as one.

So this begs the question (and I’m really directing this specifically at Iraq, but also Afghanistan and whatever countries may be next): What makes anyone believe that America has some sort of right to go around the world and establish democracies without regard for that country’s ethnic and historic background?

This is where I like to use two arguments. One, the region of Iraq is one of the oldest regions of civilization in the world. It has seen more wars, nations, and governments than any other place on earth. This is war is just one in a long history of war and conflict. I have no doubt that their culture will persist, no matter who attempts to interfere. Two, we all know about the Domino Theory that was used to justify Vietnam (as in, if one country falls to Communism, the rest will follow…just like dominos). As history has shown, this theory has not played out. Communism did not spread rampantly throughout Asia. So then why would we expect Democracy in the Middle East to be any different? Why would we expect that Democracy to spread like dominos falling when Communism didn’t?

I don’t expect any two governments in the world to be the same. I don’t believe that what works for us will work half way around the world. I expect that people will govern themselves as they see fit. I expect that people will make mistakes in the process, but come to solutions that fit their needs, not ours. I think we need to respect our differences and, instead of forcing change through imperialism, we need to guide change through diplomacy. In a country with a 5000 year history, five years is the blink of an eye. Why not have patience and encourage change over time? War has accomplished nothing, let’s give peace a chance.

Fight Fear With Logic

In the words of a great Democrat “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” FDR uttered these words during his first inaugural address in 1933 while America in the midst of the Great Depression and the world was plunging into chaos and war. Imagine that! A president telling the people that our greatest threat is being too afraid to do anything. At a time when there was much to fear, we had a president telling us to face that fear and fight it back.

In my belief, a government should have the best interest of its people in mind (but, hey, that’s just me). And those interests span from health to education to, yes, security. I think that security coverts the daily and internal threats, but sometimes, security includes protecting the people from external threats; the key word being sometimes. Yet, external threats are all this administration can talk about. They would have us believe that there is nothing else to focus on except one threat, and that none of the domestic issues that we actually care about are tied to the external threat.

Unfortunately for us all, the current administration lacks the courage to lead the people. Instead they rely on the politics of fear and keeping the people afraid. For example, the “terror threat rainbow” (I have no idea what it’s really called, so that’s what I call it) is one tool that Bush and Co use to keep the people afraid. If the government were honest with us, it would be blue because, let’s face it, it’s way more dangerous to drive a car, eat a cheeseburger, use a hairdryer, etc. However, as we’ve come to expect, this administration is always less than honest and they’ll do whatever possible to retain their power over the people.

Cheney did it in 2006 and now McCain is doing it. What is it? Telling the people that he “believes” that the terrorists are watching our election cycle and will try sway the results through attacks. On the face, this seems like the Republicans (already) making excuses for losing the election. But, more importantly, it is the use of fear to manipulate the people. The Republicans continue to ignore the bests interests of the people, focus on wedge issues, and try to tell us that everything is going to be ok…as long as we vote for them. Their entire platform revolves around keeping the people scared.

We are at a point now where we need to face this fear mongering head on. This is what we need to say to the cowards who try to keep us afraid: 

"We weren't afraid when we voted for you the first time. A few years later, you told us that we were almost done being afraid, and now your successor wants us to be afraid for the next 100 years. Well, we're sick of being afraid, so we're going to vote for the person who tells us the truth: Life is dangerous, but your chances of getting killed by a terrorist are smaller than your chances of winning the lottery; that, in order to have a friend, you need to be a friend. And that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. We're moving on. And, oh by the way, we’re also not voting for you because your party is run by hypocrites and perverts, and has managed to flush the economy, world opinion, our health care system, education and the environment down the toilet. But, we’re not afraid any more either."

Why NOT McCain?

From McCain's website:

John McCain is an experienced conservative leader in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. He is a common sense conservative who believes in a strong national defense, a smaller, more accountable government, economic growth and opportunity, the dignity of life and traditional values.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Undecided/whymccain.htm

We need to get out there and debunk all of his myths. McCain is no Lincoln or Roosevelt (and being Reagan doesn't have positive implications, in my opinion). McCain will try to distance himself from Bush, while at the same time promoting the failed policies of the past eight years. We must head him off at every opportunity!

Why Not McCain? Let's hit some of his talking points:

America faces a dangerous, relentless enemy in the War against Islamic Extremists. Yes, there are Islamic extremists, but there are also Christian extremists who have very similar policies and you do not denounce them. The truth is, Bush's war on Terror has done more to fuel hatred against America and has only served to breed terrorism. This GWOT will never be solved through fighting, it will only be solved through diplomacy. If the US wants to be a leader, we need someone who is willing to take the time to get to the root of the problem, not someone who will go straight for war.

A Democrat elected President will join hands with a tax-and-spend Democratic Congress and subject Americans to enormous tax increases. Bush said in the SOTU that if his tax cuts are allowed to expire, the average American will see a tax increase of $1,087. Well, Bill Gates and a homeless person have an average net worth of $20 billion. True, but is it an accurate statement? Not at all. If a Democrat were elected, the wealthy would likely lose many of their tax breaks, that have already cost this nation $1.3 trillion. Additionally, corporations would see their useless tax breaks eliminated. But, putting the money back into the hands of the people WILL stimulate the economy. Every dollar spent returns to the economy five-fold. And, honestly, this is two strikes for trickle-down economics. It has yet to work. Democrats will balance the budget by eliminating wasteful Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and greedy. Democrats will spend the money they have available. Remember the surplus of the Clinton years? Well, it will be harder to get back to because of failed Republican economic policies, but it can be done.

Americans have lost faith and trust in their government. Special interests have too much influence in Washington. So, what were all the favors for Vikki Iseman's clients about? Oh yea, campaign donations. And all those lobbyists you have running your campaign? Face it John, you aren't the man to restore faith and trust. You are just another Republican, willing to do whatever you can to get more votes. This one is a total lie and we all know it. 

Americans want judges who will strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench. Actually, we want judges who will uphold the Constitution and not allow Republicans to modify and ignore the basic principles of America. We don't want warrantless wiretaps, torture, or a government that combines church and state. Let us pursue life, liberty and happiness. As long as we don't bother you, what is your problem? Oh, and also we want judges who don't get DUIs while in drag (a la Robert Somma). Talk about hypocrites...

John McCain offers nothing but more policies that favor the wealthy and businesses. He has no desire to reform the government that is working so well for him. So, go ahead and vote for McCain if you want your grandchildren to die fighting in the perpetual war on terror, if you want to pay into Social Security and never be able to take out, if you want to see the American education system demolished and the economy handed over to the wealthy.

But, if you want to see America restored as a world leader in democracy and prosperity, vote Democratic in 2008!

Jesus Was A Democrat

Jesus was a Democrat. That’s the secret that the Religious Right doesn’t want you to know. Jesus preached fairness, tolerance, peace and responsibility, all of which are Democratic principles. Republicans have continuously acted in the name of war, greed, fear and hatred, none of which are supported by the teachings of Jesus.

Here are some of the tenants of the Democratic Party: An honest, open and accountable government, fair trade and corporate responsibility, government responsibility to all its citizens, separation of church and state, and equal opportunity and equal justice for all. Democrats believe that the government exists for the benefit of all and that the government should adopt policies that enable all people to succeed. Democrats also believe that war should be used as a last resort, and only to protect America.

So what does the Bible teach us about these principles?

Honest, open and accountable government: Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. (Luke 12:2-3)

Fair trade and corporate responsibility: Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. ... For where you treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matt. 6: 19, 21) 

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (Matt. 6:24) 


Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. (Luke 12:15).

Government aid to all: I was hungred and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Naked and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.... Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matt. 25:35-40)
If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (Matt. 19:21).

Separation of church and state: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s. (Matt. 22-21).

Equal opportunity and justice: Ye have heard that it hath it said, thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. (Matt. 5: 43-44);
Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. (Matt. 5:7).

War: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Matt. 5:9).

So, how can the right be religious? One idea is that the leaders of the right focus on personal behavior instead of social behaviors, sin versus injustice. Of course, when you look at the personal behavior of Republicans, sins abound. Extortion, money laundering, drugs and sex are all scandals that have tainted Republican leaders (check out Republican Sex Offenders for continuously updated examples). A better argument is that the conservative leaders know that they can mobilize the “single issue” voters. The GOP rails against progressive positions on gay rights, gun rights, and abortion in order to attract Christian fundamentalists. They manipulate the teachings of Jesus for the sole purpose gaining votes.

What I don’t understand is how people could be so willing to ignore the book that they live by. I don’t see how people can cast aside the very phrases that they use to shape their existence. And I certainly can’t excuse the fact that they are willing to forgive those leaders who claim to live by the Bible but are then caught doing just the opposite.

Maybe we should challenge the leaders of the religious right to live by the teachings of Jesus. We should challenge them to tolerate, help and pay their taxes. I’ll tell you one thing, if this country were run by the teachings of Jesus, it would be a very liberal nation.

So, I’ll leave you with one last teaching, and maybe it is the one that the religious right should be most concerned about:

Hypocrisy: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith, these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. 

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.... 

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ... ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matt. 23: 23-28).

Vote Republican If You Hate America

Voting Republican is not patriotic. Unless, of course, you believe that being a patriot means selling out your fellow countrymen to make more money. And, if we go by the 2004 election results, more than half of the people who voted feel this way. The question is, how were the Republicans able to hijack the idea of patriotism, convolute it’s meaning and convince people to vote against their own best interests?

Republicans stand for everything that is wrong with our government and our country. I’m not even going to go near George W. Bush because, as far as I can tell, he’s a complete psychopath (and I’m going to use him as a textbook example as to why people shouldn’t use drugs). Read this if you don't believe me. So, I’ll use john McCain and his “lobbyist problem” as my example. I could care less if they ever held hands, canoodled or whatever, that’s not the issue (but the Republicans would like you to focus on that because it’s easier to defend). No, the real issue is McCain’s sense of integrity and judgment. Why would someone who is so outspoken against lobbyists in the legislative process turn around and accept favors from and do favors for a lobbyist? McCain garnered huge campaign donations from this lobbyist’s clients, which leads one to believe that he was doing something for these people (and he was). McCain put his own self-interests above the needs of the American people and then expected people not to notice or care.

Yet somehow Republicans have managed to trick the general population into believing that they stand for “small government, low taxes,” and have labeled the Democrats as “tax and spend.” However, this is completely incorrect and not based in reality. For an example of how Republicans actually govern we’ll use Ronald Reagan (everything about his presidency). George W. bush says that if his tax cuts are not made permanent “the average American will see a tax increase of $1,087,” which is true, but not accurate. Bush is averaging the tax increase that millionaires will see and the decrease that the lower and middle class will see and it still comes out to an increase. Here, I can play that same game: Bill Gates and a homeless man have an average of $20 billion between them. That’s true, but it’s not accurate.

The hypocrisy is maddening. If being patriotic meant blindly accepting whatever the government says and does, there wouldn’t be an America for us to be patriotic about. If the founding fathers had not stood up to the injustices of the King, we would not be Americans. So, obviously, in America being patriotic means speaking out against a government that is unjust and asserting our right to personal freedom. However, Republicans would have you believe that being patriotic means believing whatever they say and accepting their corrupt ways as “best for America.”

Look at the titles of their legislation: The USA PATRIOT Act (clever acronym: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) which actually weakens civil liberty protection; the Protect America Act which allows the government to invade your privacy; the No Child Left Behind Act which, aside from being completely ineffective and weakening our public school system, actually requires all schools to distribute the name and home phone number of all enrolled students to military recruiters. These examples of legislation don’t even scratch the surface, but they illustrate the fact that Republicans have established a system in which voting against their fascist ideas makes it easy for them to point to someone and say “That person isn’t a patriot because they voted against the USA PATRIOT act,” or whatever legislation they are pushing. (On a side note, where can I get a job making up acronyms?)

And, I’m still not sure how Republicans can claim to be the party of morality and righteousness. Literally every day another Republican is indicted, outed or arrested (or some combination thereof). Just this week we’ve had McCain and his lobbyist issues, his campaign co-chair Rick Renzi indicted on 35 counts of fraud, extortion and money laundering, and Bush-appointed federal judge Robert Somma arrested for DUI while wearing drag. I mean, C’MON! Where do they find these people?! Their moral compasses a beyond broken, and yet Republicans continue to claim that they (as in all of them) are of sound morals and judgment. Nope. I’m not buying that at all.

I could go on forever. The corruption is deep and widespread. Republicans have hijacked America and turned it into their own little perverted playground. It’s time for us to take it back. Every time a Republican does something and then tries to sweep it under the rug, we’ll be there to keep it plain sight. Since the media is not going to help, we’re going to have to be the vigilant, patriotic citizens our founding fathers envisioned. Don’t let people hold our leaders to the low standard Bush has set. Expect more from our government. Vote Democratic in 2008!

What We're Fighting For

I know that the debate of Clinton or Obama is occupying people's minds, but I thought we could use a reminder of what we're fighting for. Set to the song Fighter by Christina Aguilera, a brief summary of the past seven years. Enjoy!

Oh, I Bet That Tastes Terrible!!

Have you noticed how many Republicans are now endorsing John McCain as a "true conservative"? Yes, I have too. And it made me wonder: What the F*** are they drinking?? Well folks, I've figured it out. Republicans across the country have been chugging this delightful new cocktail. But, you'd better hurry, this one will only be around until November 4, 2008!

McCain Kool-Aid Cocktail

aka: The REAL Jungle Juice

Ingredients
1 common language (usually English, Spanish when necessary)
1 “good” pinch of select “herbs” (can substitute cocaine, if desired)
2 prescription painkillers (Oxycontin preferred)
1 ½ oz Southern Comfort
Fear
Hatred
Xenophobia
Aggression
Grape Kool-Aid Powder
Ice

1) In a large Hurricane glass, muddle the common language, herbs and pain medications until sufficiently jumbled.
2) Stir in Southern Comfort (and then a little extra for good measure).
3) Add Grape Kool-Aid powder (enough so that your friends and donors won’t be able to tell you “fell off the wagon” at close range).
4) Toss in a few ice cubes.
5) Layer fear, hatred, xenophobia, and aggression (or any combination thereof).
6) Garnish with $100 bill or newest insider-trading stock tip.

Drink quickly (and discreetly) and order another!

*Best when served by Karl Rove and Bill O’Reilly.

Variation 1:
Take two Oxycontin. Chug bottle of Southern Comfort. Make derogatory comment about passing minority. Watch Fox News until you pass out. Enjoy!