|
Post by Mike on Feb 20, 2006 13:11:04 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure we've identified the Weapons of Mass Desruction, and the greatest threat to America.
It is the Bush Administration!!!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Feb 20, 2006 19:26:14 GMT -5
On the drive back to Portland from a Feat show in Grants Pass, Helen and I decided to count "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers. We counted 12 in the four hours we were on the road. Not many, true ... but then again, the ball has to start rolling somewhere!
So ... I am wondering if the backroom deal(s) that were struck with the Arab Emirate Republic (weapons at a discount price, operative control of six major U.S. ports, money to help pay down the debt so things look good on paper as the next election ramps up) might be the deceptive crap that -- if exposed -- brings this Administration down. I don't think they thought anyone would catch on ... or, if they did, would be so panty-bunched about Cheney shooting someone after a few beers that they would ignore it. This is an arrogant and secretive bunch of brown shirts we got running the show -- they know what is best for the rest of us (who are, naturally, all too stupid to actually take direct action on any issue) and will stop at nothing to accomplish their goal of making the world safe for corporate trade.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Feb 22, 2006 15:13:49 GMT -5
Okay, I have four more questions that need answering from anyone reading this list who still feels this President (and the people with whom he surrounds himself ... many whom we never see, because they are behind the curtain and pulling the string) is doing a fine job and the direction in which he is steering us is the way we actually want to go
7. Never mind that a Dubai Port Company has no control over "security" in the American ports it is purchasing and that the President insists they will be allowed to purchase (so therefore, national "security" is not the issue critics make it out to be) ... why do we not apply a different standard or set of criteria in the world of "economics" to a company that is state owned and operates in a state that has allowed the shipping of nuclear materials to the "axis of evil"?
The President says it is a question of "principle" ... if we allow a British company to operate ports in the U.S., why should we subject an Arab nation (and company) to a stricter set of criteria when determining whether or not they should be allowed to purchase those operations? It seems to me, by the President's own words (either you are with us, or you are against us), the U.A.E requires a different set of criteria. Since when does a terrorist's signature on a piece of paper or a contract guarantee the honoring of such a contract? Here we are, in debt up to our neck, and this President allows the selling off of yet one more asset (of course, it was already owned by a foreign-controlled company). And what connection does the Secretary of the Treasury have to this Arab country, since most of his wealth was made in the international cargo and shipping industry? And what holdings does the Bush family still have in shipping companies?
8. How much do we trust this President, and his mouthpieces?
Okay ... we either had bad intelligence about Iraq (which the CIA increasingly tells us we didn't), or we made it up. In either case, the "trust" card pretty much should have been eaten up with just that one major "miscalculation" (though I fear it was not "mis" calculated, at all ... instead, it represents a cynical bit of cold calculation that subsequent events have proven to have been effective -- especially if the goal was to establish a military basis ... and military bases ... in the center of the Middle East by knocking over the weakest potential enemy and the one most easily identified as an "enemy"). This should, by now, be even more evident as we learn that a horrifyingly large percentage of people still believe the lies we were told about (a) wmd, (b) connections between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, and (c) the imminent threat to our national security that the latter possessed were TRUTHS.
We have been lied to (or at least misled) on how much real information this Administration had about the intentions of Osama bin-Laden prior to 9/11, about the whereabouts of men who flew planes into WTC (or that they were traveling under U.A.E passports), and just how prepared this government is to deal with authentic threats. Some are even beginning to play the paranoid card -- if this administration lies regularly, maybe they are justified -- and wonder aloud if the fact that Osama is still at large (and the President even says "I don't give him much thought!") is because that his payoff for complicity in the attacks on WTC. I find this question interesting ... though I have not yet convinced myself that shrub is that evil, so have not yet bought into the ultimate conspiracy theory.
We have been lied to (or at least misled) about how much the government knew and what steps it took in preparation for Hurricane Katrina, even if protecting Americans against a known threat to their safety and well-being -- potentially at least as bad as it actually turned out to be -- was the primary obligation of the newly created Dept of Homeland Security.
We have been lied to about global warming, about permissible carcinogens in water and air, about the effectiveness of morning-after pills, about the status of endangered species, about the effect of salvage logging on the rate of regrowth in our forests, about efforts to reduce dependence on oil. We have been lied to about the nature of the President's association with a convicted felon, money launderer, briber, possible gangland style murderer and otherwise swell guy ...
Then, as if trust were not already an issue of widespread concern, the Vice-President shoots a friend and says nothing to no one for 14-20 hours (the actual time delay seems to fluctuate from source to source ... another sign of prevarication and manipulation of the facts), original news reports on major media websites (CNBC, CNN, CBS ... to name three that were documented) are deleted -- not "corrected" in a follow-up story, not "modified" or "adjusted" by revelation of new information, but wiped out and erased ala Winston Smith -- while apologists for the VP try to claim this was just a "routine" accident handled as anyone would handle an emergency (though the VP chose not to accompany his "friend" to the hospital, but chose instead to go home and have dinner and a few drinks before retiring to "contemplate the proper response")
And now, the President asks us to trust him that this port deal has been properly vetted and all risks to national security checked out!
9. How do we know that the President has not embarked down yet another fool-hardy road to war -- in this case, with Iran?
This is a President who sees it as a question of national security for him to unilaterally spy on an undisclosed number of American citizens, without Congressional or Judicial oversight, and to aggressively seek the identity of person(s) who leaked his illegal actions to the American people while continuing to stonewall efforts of those seeking to find the source of leaked information that really did impact our national security. Valerie Plame, besides being the wife of a man the Administration wanted to get even with (punish would be a better word), also -- it turns out -- was a key player in a clandestine network of operatives keeping tabs on wmd (including nuclear aspirations and developments) within Iran. Now that she has been outed, that network has been pretty much eliminated. We have no way of knowing -- for sure -- what is going on inside of Iran. On the one hand, this poses an imminent threat to our security ... the act of outing her actually reduced our safety. On the other hand, it also makes it practically impossible for any source outside the Administration to speak with any "trust" about those developments -- the voices that tried to warn us about the lies being told about Iraq were hushed; in Iran, should we choose to go to war for the same reasons, there are now NO voices ... Remember, consistently we have been told by "experts" (perhaps Valeria Plame was the source of their assurances) that Iran is at least one decade away from having a nuclear weapon; but recently, the drumbeat has begun that they are restarting their enrichment program and the threat of a bomb is "imminent"!
10. What is the real value of the dollar?
Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard. Republican "conservatives", from Ronald Reagan on, have transformed us from the strongest creditor nation in the world to the country with the largest debt in the history of the planet. Nations are buying up our credit at an astonishing rate (see other questions). So far, it all works, because the dollar is relatively sound. But why is that? Well, in part, it is because of "trust" (see above). More practically, the dollar has value because one of the most valuable and important commodities in the world economy is oil, and oil is traded in dollars. However, please note that Iran is working feverishly to change the basis on which oil is traded to euros. If this should occur (and believe me, I don't think this Administration will allow that to happen), the dollar will be practically useless. What will this do to our social and economic fabric of life? How will the Republicans -- who speak so highly of accountability (well, other people's accountability, anyway) -- account for events that might arise from such an event. And will they have the cajones to tell us that this is why we risk a war with a major military power?
|
|
henry
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by henry on Feb 22, 2006 15:15:10 GMT -5
RE: panty-bunched press corps, the following was published last weekend up here in the frozen O-zone. FEBRUARY 18, 2006
POETIC JUSTICE BY JOHN ALLEMANG
Mass distraction
What if he planned it all this way? The gun fired on that fateful day, The loyal friend felled by his shot, The press corps chasing something hot – A nation’s search for easy laughs Rewarded by Dick Cheney’s gaffes. What if it were a clever ruse To save himself from much worse news? While men rot in Guantanamo Ignored by every late night show, And Haliburton makes a buck Exploiting war’s well-placed good luck, And Scooter Libby pins the blame On higher-ups without a name, And anger at Katrina’s rage Looks like it might take center stage Dick Cheney with his well-timed blast Ensures his laugh will be the last.
A quail turns out to be a man? There goes our short attention span, And one of war’s most vicious hawks Now gets to share his pain on Fox.
Poetic Justice is a weekly column in THE GLOBE AND MAIL TORONTO
And yes, Scott in a perfect world that could be the straw to break the dromedary, but its pretty thin gruel compared to the meaty FEMA and 1st amendment rights issues, imho. (excuse the mixed metaphor, please)
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Feb 22, 2006 18:28:03 GMT -5
hey henry ... que paso mi amigo?
quail in the bush is small frey, I agree ... I have been hoping all along that even the dull repetition of these "singular" events might be enough to awaken the slumbering gob of goo known as "main stream America" that something smells in the Capitol. Instead, each new jolt just seems to inure everyone to the horror being created, and this world won't even end with a whimper ... it will be more like a snore! By what earthly right (let alone our own Bill of Rights ... probably viewed, like everything else, as a bill of lading by this adminisration) are we empowered to hold foreigners in a prison cell without telling them why they are being held, without allowing anyone to speak with them (let alone a lawyer, for gosh sakes), without bringing them in front of a judge (even a hanging judge) to charge them and present some evidence for why they are being held, or to force feeding tubes down their throats if they choose not to eat in protest of their treatment? And Halliburton has just been given a contract to build an undisclosed number of these prisons (excuse me, "detention facilities") in undisclosed locations for use in "future" eventualities.
Isn't it interesting when these silly little gaffes "appear"?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 23, 2006 22:52:45 GMT -5
I find this question interesting ... though I have not yet convinced myself that shrub is that evil, so have not yet bought into the ultimate conspiracy theory. Scott, Of course we move at our own pace, but after having been ruthlessly beat out of oil and gas leases by W, even in his amateur days (and mine), then having him as governor.....a quick check of his inner circle of friends (partners), and watching their behavior the last 6 years; I no longer struggle with those questions. For me, trying to trust Bush etal gives me that "danger is lurking behind you" feeling...deep down.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Feb 24, 2006 11:15:55 GMT -5
"Trust" is not the question, Mike ... there is absolutely nothing to trust in the man (and his cronies). Stealing the first election by ignoring a central tenant of his party's values (that is, state's rights), then claiming a "mandate" after a second narrow victory was warning enough; but this President has lied, and distorted, and mistated so many things that he has exhausted his cache of "king's exes" (which is what I call the room I give all politicians to do what it is that all politicians do so well -- that is, lie and misstate in order to either cover their ass or because they just don't know any better). I knew that he could not be trusted before the election, however. I just looked at his eyes -- these are the eyes of a liar, of a weasel, of a person calculating what he is saying instead of speaking from the heart. They won't let him "speak from the heart", of course -- and for very good reasons. He will say things for which he will later be sorry and for which most "compassionate" people would have to apologize, but of course he will never do that because it is not his style; he will say something absolutely stupid, because he is a fundamentally stupid man; or he will say something he actually means (not that he has much of a belief system), which will scare the beejeesus out of everyone.
I knew he could not be trusted before they began beating the drum to take out Saddam ( nothing they said jibed with my knowledge of Middle Eastern and Islamic politics, which isn't extensive but is broad enough to know that everything they said was either untrue, or stated in such a way as to be horribly misleading). I also happen to be peripherally involved in studies of climate change, and understand the politics of science very well -- that is, "hired hands" working for corporate "institututes" seem to never support the findings (let alone make discoveries of their own) of scientists whose mouth is not directly fed by corporate salaries (do the repeated lies by "scientists" working for the tobacco industry ring a bell?) -- so as soon as Bush and his cronies endorsed reports issued by the Petroleum Institute, I knew we were heading down a path of misstatement, lies and distortion when it came to implementing the Kyoto Protocols.
So "trust" is not an issue. This President long ago exhausted his good faith, and there is absolutely nothing he can say that earns my trust. Everything he says is now suspicious, and must be confirmed by multiple independent sources before I will give him any trust. He long ago lost my respect, and joined the ranks of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon at the top of the heap of the worst Presidents this nation has ever had.
No ... the "question" I find interesting has to do with Osama bin Laden's fate, and why the President doesn't think about him very much anymore
But there are more important questions, ones that maybe we can find an answer to (and ones which aren't as easily dismissed as nothing more than paranoid ranting -- which, though clearly bordering on paranoia, somehow seem to stubbornly persist and hang around like a nagging in-law) ...
Somewhere there is a piece of hard evidence to link Cheney/Rumsfeld to Saddam Hussein, Halliburton (and its no-bid contracts in Iraq, New Orleans, and now to build "detention centers" in the U.S.), Ken Lay, Enron, secret energy policies, John Snow, CPX, DPW, David Sanborn (previous CEO of DPW and new appointee to direct the Maritime Administration!), Norquist, Rove, Abramoff and who knows how many lesser players involved in creating a new oligarchy (or rather, giving an oligarchy the keys to the country). It's extremely interesting to me, as a historian, to try to figure out how so much energy can be successfully applied to being clandestine and conspiratorial and yet how the same people can be so inept at everything they do.
It's almost like the ghost of Ed Meese has infused all of these people with the desire to "Starve the Beast" -- if you make government so bad, then it will just go away
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 24, 2006 22:13:14 GMT -5
Leave it to those British bad boys, The Sex Pistols to tell the RR Hall of Fame exactly what they need to be told! ;D
Sex Pistols turn down Hall of Fame honor
By Chris Morris The Sex Pistols have opted out on appearing at their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
The groundbreaking English punk rock group officially declined the honor -- to be handed out March 13 at a dinner and performance at the Waldorf Astoria in New York -- in a crudely scrawled, mispunctuated handwritten message posted on the band's Web site Friday.
"Next to the SEX PISTOLS rock and roll and that hall of fame is a piss stain," the statement read. "Your museum. Urine in wine. Were (sic) not coming. Were (sic) not your monkey and so what?"
The statement slammed Hall of Fame voters as "music industry people," and excoriated the high price of attending the exclusive event -- $25,000 for a table, "or $15,000 to squeak up in the gallery." It concluded, "Your (sic) not paying attention. Outside the shit-stem is a real SEX PISTOL."
Other 2006 inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame include Black Sabbath, Blondie, Miles Davis, Lynyrd Skynyrd and industry executives Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss.
Susan Evans, executive director of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation, said of the band's announcement, "They're being the outrageous punksters that they are, and that's rock 'n' roll."
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 24, 2006 22:18:29 GMT -5
"Trust" is not the question, Mike ... there is absolutely nothing to trust in the man (and his cronies). Whew! You had me worried there for a minute.
|
|
|
Post by big little brother on Feb 25, 2006 7:38:31 GMT -5
Of note: Iraq had begun, or was about to begin, trading oil in Euros shortly before the last drum beating began.
Pardon my negativity, but I don't see how a rational look at the national(US) and global situation results in anything but the worst possible future.
The bullet points: -Iran starting oil bourse next month. -The federal reserve hiding M3 reports starting next month (coincidence? hmmmm.....) -Fewer added value activities in the United States every day. Our only remaining hold as a nation is a military machine and petrodollar recycling. Those are going bye-bye rapidly. -Housing markets treated as trading commodities(no added value there either) -A growing worldwide financial imbalance which could tip into a full blown crisis at any time. -Growing liquid fuels crisis(peak oil anyone?) -Republican party that has left traditional conservatives way behind in order to bow to corporatism. -A Democratic party that is equally complicit in selling out their country. -Global corporatism as a result, which left unchecked will become the dominant political entity in the world.(unless the islamists manage to take over first, they do have the bulk of the liquid fuels, after all) -Global warming, which will only be exacerbated by all the above geopolitical conflicts and even more so by the pending liquid fuels crisis. (still lot's of coal to burn! doesn't that sound like a lovely solution?...what? You think we won't?) -Growing resource limitations of all kinds, water, food, energy, minerals, whose current extraction/production levels are deeply dependent on cheap liquid fuels.
Now factor this little fact into the equation. All the above posted by a traditional conservative free market capitalist. (that would be me)
We are sooo screwed.....
Dirty Banana, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Tipi on Feb 25, 2006 11:40:44 GMT -5
Now factor this little fact into the equation. All the above posted by a traditional conservative free market capitalist. (that would be me) We are sooo screwed..... Amen! Does this mean you're ready to change your mind?! Clearly us humans need the help of tragedy to counteract our selfish tendencies, a necessary component of successful free market capitalism in my opinion. I too feel the world has never been in such dire straights, but it is my hope that the situation will help to illuminate the holes in our legislative morality! a growth economy, in a finite set of resources, is oxymoronic. Change your mind often ... it'll help keep your ideas from stinking. Always love, T
|
|
|
Post by big little brother on Feb 25, 2006 12:44:27 GMT -5
Amen! Does this mean you're ready to change your mind?! a growth economy, in a finite set of resources, is oxymoronic. Change your mind often ... it'll help keep your ideas from stinking. Always love, T My philosophical view has not changed, but my assumptions for the future have changed dramatically. Our economic and polical models must change to ones centered around sustainability if we are to survive. I doubt very much this will happen. Instead we are more likely on the verge of resource wars followed closely by, or in conjunction with, ecological disaster. Pardon my cynicism. We as a species have proven time and again that we are unable to manage ourselves, our relationships with other groups, or our environment. We are f**king ourselves off the face of the planet, and will continue to do so until the planet kicks back. The only thing that remains to be seen is just how hard the kickback will be. From here, it is starting to look like it will be a death blow. Damn I am in a dark mood.....
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 25, 2006 12:51:29 GMT -5
The bullet points: -A growing worldwide financial imbalance which could tip into a full blown crisis at any time. -Republican party that has left traditional conservatives way behind in order to bow to corporatism. -Global corporatism as a result, which left unchecked will become the dominant political entity in the world We are sooo screwed..... Dirty Banana, anyone? With the secret approval of allowing the sale of our ports to the UAE, it sounds to me like Bush & Sons, Inc (formerly The United States of America) has had it's notes called in by their loan sharks!
|
|
|
Post by big little brother on Feb 25, 2006 13:00:35 GMT -5
The bullet points: -A growing worldwide financial imbalance which could tip into a full blown crisis at any time. -Republican party that has left traditional conservatives way behind in order to bow to corporatism. -Global corporatism as a result, which left unchecked will become the dominant political entity in the world We are sooo screwed..... Dirty Banana, anyone? With the secret approval of allowing the sale of our ports to the UAE, it sounds to me like Bush & Sons, Inc (formerly The United States of America) has had it's notes called in by their loan sharks! Exactly so... [dark mood] And if we survive long enough, we will discover the United States will be a vast tenement owned by absent landlords, where the daily concerns will not be health care, retirement, or Super Bowl parties, but will instead be about meals, shoes, and staying warm. [/dark mood]
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Feb 25, 2006 13:14:32 GMT -5
My philosophical view has not changed, but my assumptions for the future have changed dramatically. Our economic and polical models must change to ones centered around sustainability if we are to survive. I doubt very much this will happen. Instead we are more likely on the verge of resource wars followed closely by, or in conjunction with, ecological disaster. Pardon my cynicism. We as a species have proven time and again that we are unable to manage ourselves, our relationships with other groups, or our environment. We are f**king ourselves off the face of the planet, and will continue to do so until the planet kicks back. The only thing that remains to be seen is just how hard the kickback will be. From here, it is starting to look like it will be a death blow. Damn I am in a dark mood..... Hey little brother..yet big, Don't give up on the middle! That's us guys, and there are a lot of us. Once we all get hip to the scenario of survival (on the same page), we can be quite powerful. Alternative energy sources (and that's the answer-President Carter knew that in the '70s) are not that big of a deal once you remove barriers like Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, Wallstreet, etc. Us Americans are spoiled and apathetic and have let corporations take over ownership of our world, but we're beginning to see those luxuries dwindle already so if we could somehow suffer a little more to the tune of not stepping into a WalMart or stopping at an Exxon for just one week (possibly even with human blockades if necessary-those blind sheep will thank us later), we would quickly see who really owns our world. They only have the power that we allow them (for now anyway ). Bush and Co. have gained mucho power from "fear". I still say that when the flocks of sheep learn to "fear" the real danger, that will be a tactic Rove will wish he had never deployed! Of course the intent of world leaders (including Bush etal of course) is to tear down American standards to equalize for this "One World" bullshit, but when it's time, and right on time, THE AMERICAN MIDDLE will do what has to be done to survive (so we can continue to be spoiled ;D).
|
|