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.

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.

More Questions Than Answers

This administration has definitely done some great things so far. Closing of Gitmo, Fair Pay Act, and just generally freezing all Bush-era (I love saying that) policies for review are great. But, his political appointments, not so great. I'm one of the "STFU Republicans," but I understand that Obama wants more than revenge. However, it's making him look stupid. It's making all of us look stupid (I think).

So, my question is: Are all politicians and lobbyists corrupt? I was under the distinct impression that the answer is no. I've actually been a big defender of lobbyists in the past. But, increasingly, it's seeming that the answer is: eh, maybe. At least they're all as confused by the tax laws as the rest of us. Do we take these tax errors as errors or "errors"?

And what level of corruption is unacceptable? I mean, how many Bush appointees have been called out and/or punished for their significantly worse actions and misdeeds? Are these errors ("errors"?) a result of the Bush-era political atmosphere?

I've got to be honest, I want Obama to know better. He knows so many of these appointees personally or professionally or both. Shouldn't these things be known before they blow up like landmines? I want him to. Even worse, I expect him to. I'm afraid our high expectations are like sabotaging this whole Change deal. Ok, not afraid, not concerned, wary. Wary of the weight of high expectations.

Is it just coincidence that appointees are making "errors" (errors?) or do we have a real epidemic on our hands? Are these errors ("errors"?) symptoms of the 24-hour news cycle or the result of deep background checks?

I'm so confused!!

Who's good? Who's bad? WTF is going on and how can we fix it?

The Regular Person's Inauguration Weekend

Don't believe what you see in all those press pictures. This is what real people did Inauguration Weekend (hint: it involved lots of waiting). Was it worth it? Hell Yes!


So, I managed to convince my mom to come to Baltimore to see Obama's "whistle stop." The sun was out, but the temperatures were still arctic. Literally, I could count all the Fahrenheit degrees on one hand. At least we only have four more hours to wait.



I was visiting from San Diego and failed to anticipate the FREEZING cold. It's too cold to smile. I spent about $90 at Sport Chalet purchasing survival gear (but that hat is sweet, right?).


Baltimore arranged for a Billy Blanks wannabe to come out and lead some aerobics. The funny thing was, we actually did it. It was really that cold.


I just thought this guy was cool. He was all about the peace sign.


My first shot of Obama. Of course the teleprompter is blocking his face.


That's better. You can't really tell, but we're pretty close. It was awesome!



You'll notice there are no pictures of the concert on the Mall. That's because it was (again) freezing cold and I can really only tolerate so much. So, I visited friends in VA instead. But, on Monday, I was returning my rental car to the airport (parking in DC is hopeless at best anyways), and I was treated to a preview of some of the parade floats. The cops literally blocked off the intersection right in front of me. Not sure what the Cinderella carriage is all about...







Code Pink looking good. Keep it up!


I decided to walk around the Capitol Monday afternoon. I figured it would be as close as I would get (I was right). Apparently a lot of other people had the same idea.


Ok, let's get to the good part. Inauguration Pics!!

Sunrise on the Capitol. This was about two hours after we headed out. At least we got in (some were not so lucky). AND, you have to have a ticket to get this close (yea, I got hookups!). This is the view from the silver section. I figured that only gold and platinum would be ahead of us. Wrong. Purple, yellow, blue and orange were ahead of us. Apparently the color designators don't know their rankings. I think this should have been renamed the puce or "flesh tone" section.


Inauguration Weekend friends. You can't tell how excited I am because I look like I'm dying from exhaustion. I was trying hard to make facial expressions, but apparently my face was frozen.


OMG!! It's Obama! Can't you see him?!?! Hahaha


Thank God for the Jumbotrons. He got it right in this shot, but for some reason, the teleprompter typist kept typing "threat ring" instead of "let freedom ring." Weird...

After the sun rose higher in the sky, it cast a shadow on the jumbotron and I gave up trying to get any good pics. I wanted to be there and absorb the moment. Besides, other people got way better shots than I ever could.

The official moment. It was incredible (and I'd like to point out that all those people were farther back. See the tickets were good).


The second biggest cheer came when Bush flew over for the last time. One guy yelled, "Take him to Guantanamo!" Most people gave him the finger. Good riddance!!


And, of course, after a shower and a nap, we celebrated like all young, urban professionals. Sushi and sake bombs!!




I do wish I was able to get better pictures on my own, but I was just so thrilled to be a part of this incredible weekend. People ask, where were you when Kennedy was killed? When the Challenger blew up? When the towers came down? And when people ask, "where were you when Obama became president?," I can say: I was there. Simply amazing.

Ok, back to work!

Will I always be mad at Bush?

Seriously. Will I see pictures of him in five or ten years and still want to throw shoes at him?

Interestingly, it's not the series of increasingly bizarre press conferences that disgusts me (but it's safe to say he's back on the sauce). No, it's my graduate class. We actually had to have a discussion about Bush's "leadership ideas" and his "picture of success." Leadership? Success? I suppose Bush's picture of success will be staying out of prison.

Having to take (another) long look at the past eight years makes me sick. Everything he touches turns to shit. And he's so damn smug about it. He knows he's going to leave us holding the bill and with the targets on our heads while he just clears brush (or hires "non-whites" to do so). Fuuuuuuuuck. I'm having a hard time articulating how much he sucks. Justice. Economics. Environment. Military. Constitution. All of the above.

All I have to say is, no wonder Bush drinks. If I were him, I'd drink, too!

Make no mistake, tomorrow is not the end. It is the beginning.

I would just like to start out an say that I am so proud of the Democrats this year. We always knew we could run a better campaign, that we didn't need Karl Rove and fear tactics to win. We haven't won yet. I'm not counting those chickens. But, we are on the offensive, fighting Republicans on "their" turf. We are going into this ahead, in the best position we've seen in years.

And, thank you, all of those that have volunteered these past 20 months. Not just to those that have volunteered for Obama. Personally, I began this political season in the Edwards camp. But, from the beginning, we have been charged up. We have been ready to put our hearts and souls into electing a Democrat. We have put our divisions behind us and come together around Senators Obama and Biden.

When the votes are counted tomorrow (or next week), we will have our next president, and I believe we will have President Obama.

But, please, don't think the fight is over tomorrow.

This election is round one. The next four years will see an organized, vocal and aggressive Republican minority. They will push back against every plan we have for fixing America. They will not yield to our majority as so many Democrats yielded to them.

Make no mistake, tomorrow is just the beginning. We will need all of our strength, all of our grassroots networks to continue to be mobilized. We need to continue to speak out and support everything we have worked so hard for. After tomorrow, we will have the chance to see our dreams become reality. Fox and Rush and Bill-O will be feeding the fires of their followers. We must continue to outshine them. We must drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. They will hate it and us for it, but it is the only way to fix America.

Barack Obama could not have gotten this far without us. He will not get any further without us. Please, celebrate tomorrow, relax on Wednesday and come back ready for round two on Thursday.

John McCain's Balance: Senate 0, Campaign 100%

I know, it’s almost a week after the 4th of July. I’ve missed the celebratory bandwagon and now it’s back to politics as usual. Well, maybe I just needed some extra time to reflect on our situation. Each of the presidential candidates was asked to submit an essay about what “patriotism” means to them. John McCain focused on sacrifice, and Obama focused on faith in each other and in the American way (but, of course, also had to pay homage to McCain’s military service). Interesting, but do either actually do as they say or do they just expect us to look the other way when their actions contradict their words? John McCain is certainly expecting the public and the media to turn a blind eye to his hypocrisy (and, lucky for him, he’s getting it).

McCain always has a lot to say about duty and about his lifetime of service, but it appears that John McCain is sacrificing his duty in order to further his own goals. Why else would he be the most absent Senator, missing 61.8% of the votes in the 110th Congress? And today, of all days, McCain was absent again, campaigning in (insert state he’s going to lose here). Today is the day that McCain had an opportunity to stand up for the Constitution and for senior citizens or continue to act as a puppet for the neocons and big business. Unfortunately, he chose to do nothing. He couldn’t even bother to take a day off from campaigning in order to vote on the FISA and Medicare bills. Frankly, I’m not going accept any excuse that he’s too busy campaigning to do his job. Maybe he shouldn’t campaign if he can’t also handle his sworn duty to the Constitution.

And, I think I need to point out that Senator Edward Kennedy managed to make it to the senate votes on FISA and Medicare today. He’s recovering from brain surgery and undergoing chemotherapy for brain cancer and he was there Brain Cancer! Chemotherapy! And he can still make it.

What does this say about John McCain?

It says he cares more about himself than America. Sure, he can talk about his service, which I’m convinced he would have never done if his father and grandfather hadn’t been Admirals, but that’s really neither here nor there. And, of course, we’re not permitted to discuss just what McCain’s military record says about his service (demerits, reprimands, plane crashes, etc). Even if we put all that aside, and I’m not quite willing to, John McCain’s Senate record says one thing: he doesn’t care about America. He has cared more about himself than his sworn duty, so much so that he hasn’t cast a vote since April 8, 2008.

Is this the type of person we need in the White House? Someone who can’t even take a stand, even an unpopular one? Someone who needs weekends and 250 days to get used to the rigors of office?

But, even more disturbing than the absenteeism, if you can imagine it, is the fact that John McCain has the nerve to accuse Obama of “flip-flopping” on many issues, but FISA in particular. Perhaps someone forgot to mention to Johnny that he can’t attack his opponent’s position if he doesn’t have one on the books. And, John McCain’s positions are, shall we say, less than clear. Since he’s absent more than he’s present, we can’t even turn to his votes for clarity. Well, that’s unfair. He does vote periodically. And when he does, he votes the party line.

John McCain isn’t the answer. He’s the problem. He’s a disgrace to the US Senate. He offers confused, messy policies and no spine. John McCain is a puppet of the neocon corporate interests. He’s a sickening hypocrite and I can’t take his lies any more!

John McCain's Patriotism

Barack Obama's Patriotism

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.

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 Take The Wheel? Not On This Crazy Train...

Now, don't get me wrong. I am supportive of religions and of people practicing their religion of choice. But, to me, religion is personal and should remain so. I fully believe in separation of Church and State, and I am more than put off when people suggest it should be otherwise.

The other day, I happened to drive by this "mobile billboard," so I stopped to take some pictures. 

What do you think? Is this going too far?

So, is this supposed to mean that marriage is more important than the 10 Commandments or was the guy just too lazy to take down one sign before putting up the other? I guess I could call the number on the back of the truck to find out.

"Truth not tolerance." Catchy, but I don't that that was Jesus' message. This is a very disturbing set of ideas, and the more I look at this, the more sickened I become. 

For someone who is supposedly against same sex partnerships, that's an awful big picture of two men kissing. Do you suppose he took that picture himself or just surfed the internet until he found a suitable image?

Good quote. I guess he hasn't heard this one: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." First Amendment, Constitution of the United States of America.

Wait, what is that on the windshield?

Oh, it's a parking ticket! Hahaha, guess you can't park that "trailer of trash" on a bridge overlooking the freeway. Hold on. Is that a video camera? Am I being recorded as I laugh and take pictures? I must be! And that man cowering in the back seat must be the owner of this monstrosity. And he's too spineless to come out and take ownership of his offensive ideas. Sickening. 

In case you were ever wondering why people think the Religious Right is crazy, this is a prime example. 

Fare Thee Well, John Edwards. You Are Already Missed.

Today is a sad day in American politics. The most progressive, and arguably the strongest, candidate has left the race. The mainstream media has achieved its goal of a two-candidate race on the left (and are one step closer to getting their way on the right). Yet again, the American people are denied the true opportunity to choose their leader in a fair election. I have always been interested in politics, but John Edwards is the first candidate who moved me to act. He made me want to get up and spread his message to everyone I saw. I am deeply saddened today because the flame in this election has gone out.

John Edwards is the candidate of the people, but he is also the candidate of principle. His mission is to put the government back into the hands and service of the people. He is dedicated to lift up the people who need it most and bring conscience back into government. He truly believes in strengthening the middle class by strengthening our government. He has the bold initiatives and progressive ideas for health care, education, and corporate reform. He is not afraid to act for what is right and to live his life as an example of the American dream.

He is also highly principled, and unfortunately, that may have ultimately led to his exit. John Edwards does not accept money from lobbyists or special interests. He believes in the grassroots nature of American politics. The only people he indebted himself to are the American people. However, without the special interest money and backing, he couldn’t run the $100 million campaign that is required these days.

And then there is the problem of the media and corporations. They all knew that John Edwards would hold them responsible for their actions. They knew that Edwards would work to break up the monopolies that are breaking the American people. He scared them, so they actively worked against him. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but the blatant disregard for the campaign of John Edwards was astonishing. The mainstream media refused to cover him, refused to put his message and candidacy out to the people. The American people were kept from knowing their biggest advocate.

Earlier in this race I thought that Edwards didn’t need the media to win. I believed so strongly in his message that I thought others would catch on and throw their support to him. I believed that the people would recognize the importance of this election and of choosing the strongest candidate. For seven years we have been suffering the backlash of the “corporate candidate” and of the “media favorite.” We have seen the detrimental results of ambivalence. I was dad wrong. I completely underestimated the determination of the mainstream media to willfully direct the course of this election.

In the back of my mind, I know that there is something greater at work (maybe this is denial, maybe it is hope). I have to believe that Edwards would not pull out so close to Super Tuesday without knowing that something greater is in the works. I am grateful that he has not sold out his supporters for a gamble with another candidate. That may be politics, but it is not John Edwards. Besides, there is no guarantee that any of us will support any of the other candidates in the primary. I have already cast my absentee ballot, and John will be receiving my vote. I do believe that we will see more of John Edwards in the next Democratic administration.

But now we turn our attention to John Edwards’ final task: “One America, one America that works for everybody.” I will fully support the Democratic nominee because I believe that this election is still about ideas. It is still about making America a better place. We have strong Democratic candidates who are dedicated to reversing the Republican downfall that has stricken this country. Now, no one is perfect, so we will have to compromise. But, that is what “One America” is all about. We must out our differences aside and come together for a greater purpose. And we must not let the mainstream media steamroll us any longer. We are smarter and we are stronger, but we can only win if we unite.

So This Is Why People Will Still Vote Republican...

Did you know that the number of people who believe that Saddam was tied to 9/11 has actually increased since 2004? According to a June 2007 Newsweek poll, 41% of Americans believe this myth. And this is up 5% from September 2004! Additionally, a 2006 poll found that 50% of Americans believe that Iraq had or has WMD, up from 36% in 2005.

Can this be real? Are people seriously falling for this? Of course they are. And this is what the Republican Party is counting on. They perpetuate and exaggerate the threats (or make them up when they don’t exist), and then they claim that they are the only ones who can save us. This twisted logic is dangerous. It’s dangerous to America and it’s dangerous to the world.

There are the people that support the GOP because:
1) They have more money than 99.9999999999% of the world;
2) They don’t have a soul; or
3) Both
However, most of the people that fall into the Republican trap are just products of an “independent reality” (seriously, that’s a real term). The current reality is that America has spent almost $500 billion, lost 4,000 lives and displaced millions in Iraq. In order to justify this, the broken record of the GOP uses lies and half-truths to brainwash the American people into accepting their independent reality.

The independent reality is that Saddam was behind 9/11 and he had WMD poised and ready to use against American soldiers. Well, I guess he did have the chemical weapons that Reagan sold him in the 1980s, but that fact is conveniently omitted. Instead, the war-mongering Bush administration continues to spew lies. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a scholar of presidential rhetoric at the University of Pennsylvania said, "it doesn't surprise me when presidents reconstruct reality to make their policies defensible." This president may even have convinced himself it's true, she said.

My favorite justification for Iraq is this: We will be instilling democracy in the region, and from Iraq, it will spread to other nations. This is absurd and far from the truth, and here’s why. Remember back in the Vietnam Armed Conflict (no war was declared) that America used the Domino Theory in order to justify our presence. In case you’ve forgotten, the theory goes that when one nation falls to Communism, the neighboring nations will soon fall, and so on and so on until everyone is a commie. You’ll also remember that this theory failed to pan out after Vietnam fell to the communists. Sure, Communism still exists, but it is not the threat that it once was. Fast-forward to today and we are applying the Domino Theory to Democracy in Iraq. Yet, if we are to learn from history, we will see that Democracy is no more likely to spread in the Middle East than Communism in Asia.

But, back in our reality, these policies are anything but defensible. They are abhorrent. And they are ruining America. At this point, we cannot do much besides impeach our current leaders. And vote. Vote in such overwhelming numbers that our next president has a true mandate to lead our country the way we want to be lead. We want change. We need a change. So, make your voice heard. Vote in the primary. Vote in the election. Take advantage of our democracy so that our leaders can’t take advantage of us!

Calls For Impeachment

I know that this blog is supposed to be my thoughts, but I found this piece very interesting.

The Only Way To Salvage Our Dignity

The Man With The Plan

Money. Media. History. All of these factors have people prematurely counting John Edwards out of the Democratic presidential nomination race. But, when you look at the field, John Edwards should be leading the pack, not fighting for attention.

John Edwards is the only candidate who has detailed his plan to provide health care to all Americans. He is not afraid to take on the big pharmaceutical and insurance companies in the effort to make health care affordable. Where the other candidates are vague and rhetorical, John Edwards is specific. He has outlined corporate responsibility, personal responsibility, funding, and a time frame. His plan will also eliminate wasteful spending that is hurting so many Americans in the fight for health care.

John Edwards has also strengthened his position on Iraq. He doesn’t make excuses about voting for the war, but he has learned from he previous positions. Edwards isn’t a flip-flopper or a hypocrite, but someone that has learned from the past. He knows that there is no military solution and has admitted that we must leave sooner rather than later. Edwards knows that reducing troop levels raises security concerns, but the Iraqi people must take part in the restoration of their nation. And again, Edwards has detailed his plan to restore America’s military power and regain the trust of the international community. Obama may have opposed the war from the beginning, but because he was not a US Senator, he never had to vote on the issue.

Edwards has a stronger, more specific stance on the issues than the other Democratic candidates, yet the media continue to push him aside. Sure, Clinton and Obama are running historic races in their bids for the presidency, but Edwards is not one to be ignored. Unfortunately, that’s just what happened after the Iowa caucuses. Between the accolades for Obama’s “win”, the dissections of Hillary’s “loss”, Edwards was practically ignored. His second place finish should have been the headline story.

Here is a campaign that is operating on a fraction of the budget than those of Clinton or Obama, yet has a strong enough message to edge out the media “front runners.” How did he do it? Because he cuts through the circus and the hype. Clinton and Obama are counting on the fact that their minority status will convince voters that they can bring change. However, the people that aren’t influenced by appearances know that changing the outside won’t necessarily change the inside.

John Edwards is the man with the plan. He can bring positive changes to America. He might not be the biggest story of this election cycle, but he is the most solid candidate. So, when you look at your choices, look past the media hype and the money. Look at the message. When you do, you will see that John Edwards is the best choice for Democratic Presidential nominee.


Click Here to Support John Edwards

Oh, What A Night!

The 2008 election season has finally kicked off. And the Democrats are in the lead, at least by my assessment. As expected, Obama won Iowa. I attribute this win to the fact that he pushed for independents to attend the caucus, and that he spend $9.5 million more than any other Democrat. No doubt, Obama drummed up support to a fever pitch and people are excited to participate in an historic election. Could he win the nomination? Maybe. Of course, Iowa is just the beginning and with a race this close, it’s too early to tell who the Democratic front-runner is. What we do have are three viable candidates who are ready to lead America in a return to greatness.

The great news tonight is the second place showing for John Edwards. While the media was busy with Obama and Clinton, Edwards was busy taking his message on the road. While many people counted him out and predicted him to come in a distant third, he was busy proving that he cannot be ignored. His message is strong enough to win votes without all the money and hype.

The best sign, for the Democratic Party, is the enthusiasm shown by independent voters. The early predictions are that the turnout for the Democratic Party was double that of the Republican Party. People are excited about this election process and the Democratic candidates are the ones that people want to support.

The impact of Iowa could be historical. This “red” state had a 2:1 voter turnout in favor of the Democratic Party. If the red-ness of Iowa could be at stake and independents are running headlong toward the Democratic Party, the country could be headed for a red-blue transformation.

And more good news, in the form of the continued downward slide of the Republican Party. Even though Huckabee won Iowa, it’s unlikely that he will win New Hampshire (or any other state without strong evangelical backing). Romney came in second and that could hurt his already low national numbers. His negative Iowa campaign is also going to further diminish his chances of winning the nomination. So now McCain and Guiliani are the likely New Hampshire winners, although they performed poorly in Iowa.

Looks like the Republican Party is having a bit of an identity crisis. No clear front-runner to sweep the primaries and support scattered throughout the conservative spectrum will all contribute to an uphill battle for the Republicans this election season. And an endorsement from Bush or Cheney will certainly hurt any candidate more that it can help. The people want change and the Republicans just can’t (or won’t) make that happen.

Clean Slate for 2008

New Year’s Resolutions. We all make them. Or we resolve to make them. What is so compelling about January 1? I like the whole “clean slate” idea. The whole year holds so much potential, untarnished by the follies of the previous year. And 2008 is a year with more potential than the previous years have had. We will finally have a chance to break the crippling hold of the conservative minority. We will have the opportunity to elect a government that can return America to dignity in the global community.

When I think of all the potential 2008 holds, my stomach practically flips with excitement. We have an extremely important presidential election. The chance to make an historic election. We may have out first female president. Or our first black leader. I see a chance for the Democratic Party to win by huge margins. The Republican Party is faltering and we just need to capitalize on their numerous gaffes.

I also see 2008 as the year when we can return to politics and policies for Americans. I envision the end of ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy, tax havens for businesses, tax breaks for oil. And with that, we have an opportunity for a balanced budget. Fiscal responsibility isn’t easy, but someone has to do it. The mortgage crisis is just the latest proof that citizens are taking their spending cues from the government. Except the government can steal from education and social security to pay for its spending spree. Regular citizens, on the other hand, default.

Once we have our budget under control, we can set out improving America. Health care, education, Social Security. All are currently outdated programs that have just been repackaged over the years. What we have this year is a golden opportunity to lay the groundwork for complete over haul. Let’s put America in the lead in the 21st century. We’ve fallen behind drastically under Bush’s watch, and we can’t afford to play catch up. We need to start strong with innovative policies, not reactive ones.

Of course, the clean slate of 2008 also puts me on edge. Too many times have we seen the Democratic Party slip in the face of golden opportunity. Too many times has the Democratic Party seemed weak in the face of ridiculous Republican accusations and spin. We need to be aggressive from the beginning. Too much is at stake this year. We need to come together. Despite our differences, we can still come together behind one candidate. Despite our differences, we can play a better, cleaner game than our opponents.

So, these are my hopes for 2008. Let’s stay positive and make this year a victory.
(Ok, yes, I’ve also been watching a lot of football).

Fear Is Not An Option

Are you afraid? According to our government, you should be. You should be scared of terrorists (obviously). You should be scared of immigrants and their desire to steal every job available (even the ones you would never take). You should probably be scared of the Chinese and their plot to kill and retard our younger generations through lead poisoning.

People form societies and governments in order to protect themselves from threats. In the beginning the threats were external—your garden variety saber tooth tiger, warring clan, etc—but have since evolved. We’re still worried about the warring clans (more commonly called “evil empires”), but the tiger threat has pretty much gone away.

It’s obvious that governments need enemies to stay in business. And they use fear to keep their subjects passive. America is no exception. Before we were allies with the British, they were our oppressor and our enemy. We’ve been enemies with Native Americans, Canada, Mexico, most of Europe, Japan, all those tiny islands between Hawaii and Japan, Russia (and the countries that comprised the Soviet Union), China, the Middle East, and various well evil people with no country to call home. They’ve gone by different names: Monarchists, Savages, Communists, Fascists, Anarchists, and Terrorists, but they all have the same plot. They must end our freedom-loving way of life. And we must fear this.

What is so shocking and outrageous to me is how this current administration has abused the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Those tragic events were a wake up call to America, but Bush has used those events to keep Americans afraid and force legislation that chips away at the very thing that makes our country great: our civil liberties.

Subtle isn’t a word anyone would use to describe the President, but in one case, he has been quite subtle. I suppose it’s a matter of semantics, but Bush has done irreparable damage to the American psyche. Where “evildoers” and “Islamofascists” perpetrated the events of 9/11, the bombing the USS Cole highlighted a “serious geopolitical threat.” Similarly, the bombings in Bali, London and Madrid indicated “security concerns.” by using the language that they do, the Bush administration perpetuates the idea of a mythical, all-powerful enemy that does not present the same concerns as a typical enemy. But Bush is describing the same enemy that Clinton described after the USS Cole attacks. And those “evildoers” are the same people that create ‘security concerns” to Europe and Indonesia. What is the purpose of using such intense and horrific language? It’s used to put keep fear in Americans’ hearts.

And how does Bush keep the fear in our hearts? With the Terror Alert scale, of course. In case you have ignored it, I’ll give you a quick refresher. The scale has five levels: Green (Low), Blue (Guarded), Yellow (Elevated), Orange (High), and Red (Severe). For today, the National Treat Level is Elevated and the Flight Threat Level is High (which is why you have to buy $5 water to take on the plane). Since its inception, has it ever been below Yellow? No. In fact, it has only alternated between Elevated and High. So, the administration keeps us in fear, and as soon as we become too complacent, the threat level is raised to High. Just to keep us on our toes and under their thumb.

What is the point of all this fear? Why are we being made to fear the entire world? Because subject who are afraid are passive. Since we’ve been afraid, we’ve let the government pass some astonishing pieces of legislation. First and foremost, the PATRIOT Act of 2001, which is anything but patriotic. Of course, there is much more to the Act, but here are the highlights:
• Expands terrorism laws to include “domestic terrorism” which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy.
• Expands the ability of law enforcement to conduct secret searches, gives them wide powers of phone and Internet surveillance, and access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records with minimal judicial oversight.
• Allows FBI Agents to investigate American citizens for criminal matters without probable cause of crime if they say it is for “intelligence purposes.”
• Permits non-citizens to be jailed based on mere suspicion and to be denied re-admission to the US for engaging in free speech. Suspects convicted of no crime may be detained indefinitely in six month increments without meaningful judicial review.
And then there is the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The MCA eliminates the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. It allows our government to continue to hold hundreds of prisoners for more than five years without charges. It also gives any president the power to declare — on his or her own — who is an enemy combatant, decide who should be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and define what is — and what is not — torture and abuse.

Now let’s talk about what we should really be afraid of. We should be wary of a government that tries to oppress us through fear. The world is a dangerous place, but it’s not out to get us. We should be afraid of a government that tries to suppress our civil liberties in order to further its own goals. We should be afraid of an administration that does not value our Constitution or the rights we are afforded. As citizens, we have an obligation to vote out the people who support these laws and ideas. We also have an obligation to notify our congressional representatives and have these pieces of legislation repealed. It will save our country and our collective dignity.