In times of peace, when a national hero or recognized public figure has died, places of business and governmental offices fly the Flag at half mast. It has been a symbol of a country in mourning. The rules for flying a flag at half mast include on Memorial Day, the flag is set at half mast until noon, then raised to full staff until sundown. There are 5 other "official" dates the flag is to be flown at half mast. All instances are to memorialize our fallen, and the death of someone important.
My question is : Why aren't we flying our flags at half mast every single day that we have a military presence in Iraq? Our soldiers die, singly and in groups. Civilians, who took it upon themselves to help rebuild a war torn country from rubble into something resembling a 20th century country, die doing the job they were hired to do. We, the citizens left behind, do NOTHING to honor our fallen, stand idly by while our President sends more and more troops to die needlessly. This isn't about politics, or policy, or even the government. This is about respect of our fallen, our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters, the people that took an oath to protect us from the deprivations of despots and dictators.
When this war with Iraq started, a lot of the people alive during World War 2 were dying. Those still alive recalled a tradition of people with family in the military flying a stylized flag in the windows of their homes. Taking pride in your families involvement in fighting for freedom half a world away. The idea caught on once again, and families proudly displayed symbols of their support for our Military. Flags, ribbons, car magnets, t-shirts and bumper stickers abounded, all red white and blue, all showing support for the cause of freedom. Sadly, we're seeing this less and less. Yes we have a diverse and varied culture here in the US. Christians and Muslims and Jews work and live side by side on a daily basis. Most take pride in being "American", but somewhere in that pride came shame. Ashamed of a government that invaded a country on the flimsiest principle and then, when time came to take responsibility, shirked it, letting one or two people take the fall for the blunders made at the highest levels. Ashamed at being reviled by other countries at our war mongering culture.
We are proud to be a "country of promise". Chinese immigrants call the US "The Beautiful Country" when they try to come here with dreams of freedom and prosperity. People swim, walk, hide in trucks and boats to get into this country, inspired by a lady standing in the Harbor in New York, stories told of streets paved with gold and money here to be made. And it's ALL an illusion. This isn't a land of promise and prosperity. Freedoms are taken from us, day by day. Under the guise of names like "The Patriot Act" our right against illegal search and seizure has been taken from us. In order to protect us from "terrorists", our right to privacy has been taken. Taxes take over 57% of the average wage earners earnings. After defeating Iraq, an oil rich country, gas prices have soared, higher than during the fuel embargo of the 1980's. And We The People allow it. We do not stand up, we do not rise in righteous indignation and demand our rights back. We sit idly by and drive our SUVs and pay the outrageous gas prices and hope our belongings aren't seized in a government raid when time comes to pay for some "new" plan to thwart "terrorism".
We should fly our flags at half mast every day. In honor of the servicemen that continue to die
everyday in foreign countries. And to honor our Constitution, that is dying by degrees in the halls of the government we elected.
Monday, April 04, 2005
Sunday, December 12, 2004
War is Hell
A recent news story has dominated headlines and is sparking controversy, even after the Election issue has been decided. It seems an "embedded reporter" with a group of Marines was present when this group stormed a mosque, and after a prolonged battle with the insurgents inside, took over the Mosque and entered it to clear out any remaining enemy. As the Marines encountered wounded and dead insurgents, one Marine came across an unarmed, critically wounded enemy soldier, and proceeded to kill him. The reporter with this group then gave his breathless account as the "horrific events" unfolded.
Any of you bleeding heart, tree hugging, vegetarians that oppose everything, please leave the room, what am I about to say will offend you.
War is Hell. Plain and simple. We, the people of the United States, allowed our President to invade a foreign country on the flimsiest pretense known in history. He sent troops there to invade and then occupy Iraq, slapping them with our values and ideals, under the guise of "freedom" and "civil rights". Then, after the occupation, kept our young men and women there long past the date they were promised to return by. And now, we are going to discipline those same young soldiers for killing the enemy.
What do you want them to do? Coddle the enemy? Give them food and shelter, medical attention and ammunition so that they can heal up, arm themselves, and in the name of Allah, drive a car full of explosives into a police builing in Baghdad? Our Army is at war. War. Where people get killed. And yes, sometimes those people are innocent. Almost 3000 of them were innocent the morning of Sept 11, 2001. I do not in any way, shape, or form, condone this war. The reason we went to war were wrong, and the reasons we are staying there are wrong as well. But we are there. And we are at war. We cannot and should not limit what the forces we send in to "liberate" can do in the line of duty. Yes, killing another human is tragic. In this case, that human was an enemy soldier. He knew the risks when he signed on and picked up a weapon. Just as did the member of that same Marine unit knew the risks when he flipped over a booby trapped dead body and was killed in the explosion.
How dare we discipline a soldier that kills the enemy. What message does that send to the rest of our troops? What happens when the next Marine hesitates, considering his career with the military when he has an enemy in his sights? He will hesitate, and he will die. You cannot win a war with people willing to drive suicide cars and planes into buildings under the promise of virgins in the afterlife if you do not kill them each and every time you spot one of them. We train the soldiers with guns and knives, not teddy bears and Pixie Sticks. We train them to kill, show them how to kill, and then punish them when they do. If our soldiers do not kill the enemy, then our soldiers will be killed.
Any of you bleeding heart, tree hugging, vegetarians that oppose everything, please leave the room, what am I about to say will offend you.
War is Hell. Plain and simple. We, the people of the United States, allowed our President to invade a foreign country on the flimsiest pretense known in history. He sent troops there to invade and then occupy Iraq, slapping them with our values and ideals, under the guise of "freedom" and "civil rights". Then, after the occupation, kept our young men and women there long past the date they were promised to return by. And now, we are going to discipline those same young soldiers for killing the enemy.
What do you want them to do? Coddle the enemy? Give them food and shelter, medical attention and ammunition so that they can heal up, arm themselves, and in the name of Allah, drive a car full of explosives into a police builing in Baghdad? Our Army is at war. War. Where people get killed. And yes, sometimes those people are innocent. Almost 3000 of them were innocent the morning of Sept 11, 2001. I do not in any way, shape, or form, condone this war. The reason we went to war were wrong, and the reasons we are staying there are wrong as well. But we are there. And we are at war. We cannot and should not limit what the forces we send in to "liberate" can do in the line of duty. Yes, killing another human is tragic. In this case, that human was an enemy soldier. He knew the risks when he signed on and picked up a weapon. Just as did the member of that same Marine unit knew the risks when he flipped over a booby trapped dead body and was killed in the explosion.
How dare we discipline a soldier that kills the enemy. What message does that send to the rest of our troops? What happens when the next Marine hesitates, considering his career with the military when he has an enemy in his sights? He will hesitate, and he will die. You cannot win a war with people willing to drive suicide cars and planes into buildings under the promise of virgins in the afterlife if you do not kill them each and every time you spot one of them. We train the soldiers with guns and knives, not teddy bears and Pixie Sticks. We train them to kill, show them how to kill, and then punish them when they do. If our soldiers do not kill the enemy, then our soldiers will be killed.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
It's for the children
For the children. For as long as I can remember being old enough to be concerned about politics, I remember hearing what these people were doing "for the children" and what his opponent was doing "to the children". The surprise was always, no matter what had been done "to" them, children kept showing up everywhere, happy, playful, seemingly ignorant of the horrors being done to them. Conversely, for all the programs and pro-active measures taken "for" the children, they kept turning into groups of surly, arrogant, uneducated teen agers.
Now let me take this opportunity to say 4 things. First, The Partnership for a Drug Free America would be 10,000 times more effective if it's members and directors weren't the same people that allow drug companies to push their products on television every 8 minutes. Second, you cannot argue against drug use if you EVER attended a college, university, or institute of higher learning in this country. Third, children will continue to survive, sometimes even thrive, no matter what is done "to" or "for" them. Fourth and finally, if you believe that politicians have an ounce of concern for that demographic of under 18 year olds that cannot vote, you have lost the ability to tell reality from fantasy.
At some point in our history, governmental figures discovered that non-informed, non-intelligent people were easier to control, influence, and lead , much like sheep, than were smart, savvy, and sensible people. Each year, schools graduate hundreds of illiterate children into society, and then bemoan the fact that fewer and fewer teachers are available each academic year. Colleges and Universities are categorized for whichever side of the political fence the majority of professors lean. As the cost of "education" rises unchecked, the gap between the "smart" upperclass and the "dumb" working class grows. Thousands of brilliant minds are stifled and fade into obscurity each year because their financial situation dictates that they enter the work force right out of High School and not even dream of going to college.
Recently, a trend has developed in schools across the country that focuses not on performance, but effort. It doesn't reward thought and hard work, but promotes effort and effect. It happened about the same time as "Political Correctness" swept the nation. When being "retarded" morphed into "mentally understimulated", when "lazy" morphed into "unmotivated", and "goofing off" became "ADHD". Now, before you all comment, telling me how your perfect lil angel has ADHD and it has been such a struggle, THINK. If you are over 30, you remember school. We didn't HAVE ADHD, we got busted in our butts for "not paying attention". There wasn't "hyperactive disorder", you sat your ass down and sat still during school. And if you got a report card, there were A's, B's, C's, D's and F's. Yes, an F meant you FAILED. You didn't make a passing grade, you didn't advance to the next level in that subject until you DID score a passing grade. Somewhere along the way A's and F's got replaced with 1's and 4's. There is no "failure", only "needs to try harder". North Carolina has a "No Child Left Behind" program which has a policy of no child, no matter what his or her competency level, cannot be held back more than ONE time between kindergarten and 3rd grade, 4th grade to 7th grade, 8th grade to graduation. So, even if you don't know how to read, they'll reward your effort, and advance you right out into the workforce, where you can work at McDonald's, where the registers have pictures instead of words.
Recently I was reading a news report on the impact of "cyber classrooms" on a Colorado county school system. When the Superintendant was interviewed he made a statement to the effect " Whenever I lose 2 children from the school, that is 20,000 dollars walking out the door." What I find disconcerting was that he didn't once mention that he would be pleased if the students did well, that some students learn better one-on-one than in a classroom enviroment. No, his concern was the loss of MONEY to the school the children were in. And that is what I think it has boiled down to. We have ineffectual elected officials in school boards across the country that are wholeselling childrens futures to some Educator's Union for a bottom line like a business. Education has become a production line process where the few that are lazy or bored get placed with the students that have real learning disabilities and zip through the system only to find at age 18 they have no real life options. We, the adults, some parents, some not, some educators, and some working in and around schools, see this and do nothing. Because we can't and to do anything would mean "bucking the System'. Taking on the local soccer Moms in the PTA and telling them that it's not about "feelings" it's about "results". It should be "education" not "regurgitation". Teach people to think for themselves and you will see things in this country change.
Now let me take this opportunity to say 4 things. First, The Partnership for a Drug Free America would be 10,000 times more effective if it's members and directors weren't the same people that allow drug companies to push their products on television every 8 minutes. Second, you cannot argue against drug use if you EVER attended a college, university, or institute of higher learning in this country. Third, children will continue to survive, sometimes even thrive, no matter what is done "to" or "for" them. Fourth and finally, if you believe that politicians have an ounce of concern for that demographic of under 18 year olds that cannot vote, you have lost the ability to tell reality from fantasy.
At some point in our history, governmental figures discovered that non-informed, non-intelligent people were easier to control, influence, and lead , much like sheep, than were smart, savvy, and sensible people. Each year, schools graduate hundreds of illiterate children into society, and then bemoan the fact that fewer and fewer teachers are available each academic year. Colleges and Universities are categorized for whichever side of the political fence the majority of professors lean. As the cost of "education" rises unchecked, the gap between the "smart" upperclass and the "dumb" working class grows. Thousands of brilliant minds are stifled and fade into obscurity each year because their financial situation dictates that they enter the work force right out of High School and not even dream of going to college.
Recently, a trend has developed in schools across the country that focuses not on performance, but effort. It doesn't reward thought and hard work, but promotes effort and effect. It happened about the same time as "Political Correctness" swept the nation. When being "retarded" morphed into "mentally understimulated", when "lazy" morphed into "unmotivated", and "goofing off" became "ADHD". Now, before you all comment, telling me how your perfect lil angel has ADHD and it has been such a struggle, THINK. If you are over 30, you remember school. We didn't HAVE ADHD, we got busted in our butts for "not paying attention". There wasn't "hyperactive disorder", you sat your ass down and sat still during school. And if you got a report card, there were A's, B's, C's, D's and F's. Yes, an F meant you FAILED. You didn't make a passing grade, you didn't advance to the next level in that subject until you DID score a passing grade. Somewhere along the way A's and F's got replaced with 1's and 4's. There is no "failure", only "needs to try harder". North Carolina has a "No Child Left Behind" program which has a policy of no child, no matter what his or her competency level, cannot be held back more than ONE time between kindergarten and 3rd grade, 4th grade to 7th grade, 8th grade to graduation. So, even if you don't know how to read, they'll reward your effort, and advance you right out into the workforce, where you can work at McDonald's, where the registers have pictures instead of words.
Recently I was reading a news report on the impact of "cyber classrooms" on a Colorado county school system. When the Superintendant was interviewed he made a statement to the effect " Whenever I lose 2 children from the school, that is 20,000 dollars walking out the door." What I find disconcerting was that he didn't once mention that he would be pleased if the students did well, that some students learn better one-on-one than in a classroom enviroment. No, his concern was the loss of MONEY to the school the children were in. And that is what I think it has boiled down to. We have ineffectual elected officials in school boards across the country that are wholeselling childrens futures to some Educator's Union for a bottom line like a business. Education has become a production line process where the few that are lazy or bored get placed with the students that have real learning disabilities and zip through the system only to find at age 18 they have no real life options. We, the adults, some parents, some not, some educators, and some working in and around schools, see this and do nothing. Because we can't and to do anything would mean "bucking the System'. Taking on the local soccer Moms in the PTA and telling them that it's not about "feelings" it's about "results". It should be "education" not "regurgitation". Teach people to think for themselves and you will see things in this country change.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Gay Marriages
A topic that has rallied the nation's voters this fall has been the topic of Gay Marriage. And of course I have a few things to say about it. For every culture and every person, marriage has different connotations, but I think , for this discussion, we can all agree that a marriage is "a monogomous agreement between two people". Simple, yet defining enough for now.
First of all, to those that say homosexuals getting married violates the sanctity of their marriage, I say this. If two people that love each other in this day and age threatens your marriage in any way, maybe your mariage has more problems than you realize.
Second of all, I don't think most people are realizing WHY they are against gay marriage. So, I'm going to explain why the religious groups have demonized this, and perhaps open the eyes of some that are so opposed to it. For years, the religious groups portrayed homosexual men as predators of young men and boys, recruiting at the local YMCA, and in Boy Scout meetings. Being able to point out young bachelors as homosexual and promiscuous allowed the Church to place the blame for the outset of AIDS and a growing spread of pornography squarely on the gay community. When it was found that AIDS wasn't a completely homosexual disease, the Church went on a huge smear campaign, blaming gays and adding bisexuals to the mix as the catalyst that allowed the crossover of AIDS to the straight community. And it was easy to do. Playing upon fears of death from AIDS, most Churches and several teleevangelists were able to rake in huge sums of money to support an anti-pornography rally here and a anti gay rally there. In spite of all of that, the gay and lesbian community rallied, fighting for recognition and rights previously denied them by the "main-stream". Then came the question of marriage between homosexuals and the Church went ballistic. The reason? Simple. If gays are monogomous, they they aren't out recruiting and corrupting our youth. If they aren't out "spreading their immoral ways", then the Church cannot lay blame on the gay community. And without a scapegoat, the Church has to look inward. And that would lead to a mass exodus (fittingly) of members from the Church, which is lost revenue in the form of lost Tithers.
Now nevermind that Catholic priests molest boys more often than girls. Nevermind that most televangelists are embezzlers and crooks. Nevermind that their lead figure, Jesus, surrounded himself with prostitutes and fishermen, healed the sick and infirm and espoused love for everyone. Focus instead upon the fact that the Church, the Christians, are denying two people that love one another access to an institution that they, the Christians, created. In effect, those that worship Jesus Christ are denying the neighbors they are supposed to love, a symbol of their love by entering a monogomous relationship. Allowing the argument that homosexuals marrying cheapens the meaning of marriage is simply untrue. In California, a woman married her house, and one lady married her cat. Each and every day someone marries to stay in this country, and the divorce rate is the highest it has ever been. We have "preachers" that are on their fourth or fifth marriage. So, let's ask who is really cheapening marriage ; it's the ones that have been allowed to marry, without obstruction and without fighting for the right to.
Third, if allowed to marry now, after such a long and arduous battle, do you think that gays and lesbians are going to enter such a union as lightly as most young people do? No, having to fight for the right will make entering into such a covenant more meaningful, more poignant. The very ideals that most people want when they marry, but never think about, would be more evident by those that had to fight for every inch of ground to be allowed to marry. And who are Christians to define love? If allowed to define marriage, the Chruch's next logical step is to define love, the next step after that will be to prescribe and regulate the sexual behavior of the public at large.
We are not cheapening the meaning of marriage by allowing gays to marry. We are broadening the meaning of monogomous love. And isn't that what Jesus taught? Love, for everyone.
First of all, to those that say homosexuals getting married violates the sanctity of their marriage, I say this. If two people that love each other in this day and age threatens your marriage in any way, maybe your mariage has more problems than you realize.
Second of all, I don't think most people are realizing WHY they are against gay marriage. So, I'm going to explain why the religious groups have demonized this, and perhaps open the eyes of some that are so opposed to it. For years, the religious groups portrayed homosexual men as predators of young men and boys, recruiting at the local YMCA, and in Boy Scout meetings. Being able to point out young bachelors as homosexual and promiscuous allowed the Church to place the blame for the outset of AIDS and a growing spread of pornography squarely on the gay community. When it was found that AIDS wasn't a completely homosexual disease, the Church went on a huge smear campaign, blaming gays and adding bisexuals to the mix as the catalyst that allowed the crossover of AIDS to the straight community. And it was easy to do. Playing upon fears of death from AIDS, most Churches and several teleevangelists were able to rake in huge sums of money to support an anti-pornography rally here and a anti gay rally there. In spite of all of that, the gay and lesbian community rallied, fighting for recognition and rights previously denied them by the "main-stream". Then came the question of marriage between homosexuals and the Church went ballistic. The reason? Simple. If gays are monogomous, they they aren't out recruiting and corrupting our youth. If they aren't out "spreading their immoral ways", then the Church cannot lay blame on the gay community. And without a scapegoat, the Church has to look inward. And that would lead to a mass exodus (fittingly) of members from the Church, which is lost revenue in the form of lost Tithers.
Now nevermind that Catholic priests molest boys more often than girls. Nevermind that most televangelists are embezzlers and crooks. Nevermind that their lead figure, Jesus, surrounded himself with prostitutes and fishermen, healed the sick and infirm and espoused love for everyone. Focus instead upon the fact that the Church, the Christians, are denying two people that love one another access to an institution that they, the Christians, created. In effect, those that worship Jesus Christ are denying the neighbors they are supposed to love, a symbol of their love by entering a monogomous relationship. Allowing the argument that homosexuals marrying cheapens the meaning of marriage is simply untrue. In California, a woman married her house, and one lady married her cat. Each and every day someone marries to stay in this country, and the divorce rate is the highest it has ever been. We have "preachers" that are on their fourth or fifth marriage. So, let's ask who is really cheapening marriage ; it's the ones that have been allowed to marry, without obstruction and without fighting for the right to.
Third, if allowed to marry now, after such a long and arduous battle, do you think that gays and lesbians are going to enter such a union as lightly as most young people do? No, having to fight for the right will make entering into such a covenant more meaningful, more poignant. The very ideals that most people want when they marry, but never think about, would be more evident by those that had to fight for every inch of ground to be allowed to marry. And who are Christians to define love? If allowed to define marriage, the Chruch's next logical step is to define love, the next step after that will be to prescribe and regulate the sexual behavior of the public at large.
We are not cheapening the meaning of marriage by allowing gays to marry. We are broadening the meaning of monogomous love. And isn't that what Jesus taught? Love, for everyone.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Election Day blues
Well. Election Day. Let me start by saying to you, Don't fool yourselves. Whether you vote for Bush or Kerry, you're going to get another lying, cheating crook in the White House who's only interest is to line his pockets with YOUR money and keep his rich buddies rich and the poor poor. I'll take this time to assert that we haven't had a REAL President in this country since FDR. Kennedy, for all his polish and his tragic death, was the start of a downward spiral.
There is, however, good news. The era of "Political Heros of the Viet-Nam War" is drawing to a close. I'm not going to debate the "war" in VietNam, but I am a little bit tired of people using their participation, as limited as theirs usually is, as some sort of rallying point for a certain demographic. It's sleazy to hang your platform, not on what you will do to make this country great again, but on what you did in a war we shouldn't have been involved in the first place, much like our present situation in Iraq. I think Kerry thought he'd appeal to most people with the whole "war hero" angle and it blew up in his face. A majority of voters now were children during Vietnam and don't really view anyone from that era as a hero.
And here is where it gets bad. We are faced with an "evil we know" in George W Bush and an "evil we don't know" in John Kerry. I know, Nader is running, but the chances he'll win are about as great as if he were a woman and running on the Tampax ticket. I try and watch what the pundits say, but it only gets more muddled the more you listen. Bush has spent more money overseas than any President before him. Unemployment is higher since he took office. He gives tax cuts to the rich and places the tax burdens on the working class and working poor. All of that seems true enough, but how much of that did he inherit from Clinton? NAFTA screwed our working class by giving companies free rein to move to Mexico and take jobs from our factory and mill workers. I live in NC, and Pillowtex is very real to us here. Our state lost millions of jobs when companies like PillowTex went under and other companies, like RayChem, shifted operations to Mexico. When you take the jobs, the workers have no money to buy things, and the economy buckles. So, in part, the unemployment and economic troubles Bush got from Clinton. Now, for his part after 9/11, I think he brought that on himself, but he KNEW. His dad was head of the CIA when the government placed Saddam in power in Iraq to keep Iran at bay, and also when Osama was first active in Afganistan against Russia. And there are reports that the present governmental agencies knew of the attacks long before they happened and did nothing to stop them.
Which brings me to another point. How did we draw a line from Osama Bin Lauden to Saddam Hussan? From terrorist in Afganistan to a despot regime in Iraq? How do we still justify being there when we lose almost a soldier a day, and still cannot find any Weapons of Mass Destruction? Congress has the power to declare war, and ONLY Congress has that power, and can also demand the cessation of hostilities on our part and bring our military home. So, don't go pointing a finger at Bush without also pointing a HUGE finger at YOUR elected Congresspersons. I think we too often vote based on a single plank of a platform, or vote a Party ticket because our parents were one party, so we are too. And what happens is we end up with the same greedy pasty faced Senators and Representatives that say one thing to us and then do another when the vote is called for. And they only work for a few months out of every 2 years. I bet you you'd see policy change real fast if Congress was more like the Reserves, where they had to hold down a real job when they weren't in Washington DC living high on the hog. I say, let's stop over paying Congress, I'd like to see them recieve no pay AT ALL, except in times when they actually are working, much like Reservists.
Anyhoo, I'll leave all that for another blog. I think we face the same issues if Kerry wins. He can't do much with the mess that Bush leaves him. It would take much more than 4 years to clean up a pile of crap that has been building since the 60's. Taking care of Social Security and health care would make things a little bit better, but what will we do when it comes time to pay for all of that? I am not mormally a doomsayer, but I honestly believe that the ONLY way out of this mess, is either a revolution, taking out all the existing governmental figures and starting over, or a total collapse of our economy and general anarchy, which would result in a revolution. Thomas Jefferson once said something to the effect of "All true forms of government must have a revolution from time to time to keep them honest". I think that is true. We have become lead by miscreants and fools, who go to college to learn how to double speak and lie. We still want to believe, most of us anyways, that those we place in power will look out for us. They won't, and they haven't. I can't say I'd lead the country better than most, but I think I could surely make better use of 4 years at the amount of pay the President makes.
Vote your beliefs today. Vote for someone or something close to what you think will be right for this country. But don't be shocked when it's 4 more years of the same thing we've been seeing for the last 40 years.
More on politics in future posts...
There is, however, good news. The era of "Political Heros of the Viet-Nam War" is drawing to a close. I'm not going to debate the "war" in VietNam, but I am a little bit tired of people using their participation, as limited as theirs usually is, as some sort of rallying point for a certain demographic. It's sleazy to hang your platform, not on what you will do to make this country great again, but on what you did in a war we shouldn't have been involved in the first place, much like our present situation in Iraq. I think Kerry thought he'd appeal to most people with the whole "war hero" angle and it blew up in his face. A majority of voters now were children during Vietnam and don't really view anyone from that era as a hero.
And here is where it gets bad. We are faced with an "evil we know" in George W Bush and an "evil we don't know" in John Kerry. I know, Nader is running, but the chances he'll win are about as great as if he were a woman and running on the Tampax ticket. I try and watch what the pundits say, but it only gets more muddled the more you listen. Bush has spent more money overseas than any President before him. Unemployment is higher since he took office. He gives tax cuts to the rich and places the tax burdens on the working class and working poor. All of that seems true enough, but how much of that did he inherit from Clinton? NAFTA screwed our working class by giving companies free rein to move to Mexico and take jobs from our factory and mill workers. I live in NC, and Pillowtex is very real to us here. Our state lost millions of jobs when companies like PillowTex went under and other companies, like RayChem, shifted operations to Mexico. When you take the jobs, the workers have no money to buy things, and the economy buckles. So, in part, the unemployment and economic troubles Bush got from Clinton. Now, for his part after 9/11, I think he brought that on himself, but he KNEW. His dad was head of the CIA when the government placed Saddam in power in Iraq to keep Iran at bay, and also when Osama was first active in Afganistan against Russia. And there are reports that the present governmental agencies knew of the attacks long before they happened and did nothing to stop them.
Which brings me to another point. How did we draw a line from Osama Bin Lauden to Saddam Hussan? From terrorist in Afganistan to a despot regime in Iraq? How do we still justify being there when we lose almost a soldier a day, and still cannot find any Weapons of Mass Destruction? Congress has the power to declare war, and ONLY Congress has that power, and can also demand the cessation of hostilities on our part and bring our military home. So, don't go pointing a finger at Bush without also pointing a HUGE finger at YOUR elected Congresspersons. I think we too often vote based on a single plank of a platform, or vote a Party ticket because our parents were one party, so we are too. And what happens is we end up with the same greedy pasty faced Senators and Representatives that say one thing to us and then do another when the vote is called for. And they only work for a few months out of every 2 years. I bet you you'd see policy change real fast if Congress was more like the Reserves, where they had to hold down a real job when they weren't in Washington DC living high on the hog. I say, let's stop over paying Congress, I'd like to see them recieve no pay AT ALL, except in times when they actually are working, much like Reservists.
Anyhoo, I'll leave all that for another blog. I think we face the same issues if Kerry wins. He can't do much with the mess that Bush leaves him. It would take much more than 4 years to clean up a pile of crap that has been building since the 60's. Taking care of Social Security and health care would make things a little bit better, but what will we do when it comes time to pay for all of that? I am not mormally a doomsayer, but I honestly believe that the ONLY way out of this mess, is either a revolution, taking out all the existing governmental figures and starting over, or a total collapse of our economy and general anarchy, which would result in a revolution. Thomas Jefferson once said something to the effect of "All true forms of government must have a revolution from time to time to keep them honest". I think that is true. We have become lead by miscreants and fools, who go to college to learn how to double speak and lie. We still want to believe, most of us anyways, that those we place in power will look out for us. They won't, and they haven't. I can't say I'd lead the country better than most, but I think I could surely make better use of 4 years at the amount of pay the President makes.
Vote your beliefs today. Vote for someone or something close to what you think will be right for this country. But don't be shocked when it's 4 more years of the same thing we've been seeing for the last 40 years.
More on politics in future posts...
Saturday, October 30, 2004
The first among many threads...
So. Rogue has his very own repository for all the stuff that goes on inside his head. Wow. If some of what I say in here doesn't get me put on the CIA's Watch list, I'll be surprised. Seriously though, I know that some of what you will read , if anyone does read it, will offend you, and I urge to remember; It's only my OPINION. Feel free to post a response, but don't "flame" me or call me names. Let's keep it somewhat mature and adult.
Now, a little bit about what I will talk about, just so you know what to expect. I'll cover politics, religion, sex, gender, lifestyle issues (BDSM mostly), books, movies, music, pets, Zen, motorcycle maintenance... oh wait. There's a book that covers those last two. But you get the idea. Nothing is out of bounds for me, so what you'll see is all of it. And while I may, sometimes, censor myself, I'm not going to be kind nor politically correct in most of my rants. Just so you know.
So, relax, open your mind a bit, read, enjoy and hopefully some of what I say will make you think.
Now, a little bit about what I will talk about, just so you know what to expect. I'll cover politics, religion, sex, gender, lifestyle issues (BDSM mostly), books, movies, music, pets, Zen, motorcycle maintenance... oh wait. There's a book that covers those last two. But you get the idea. Nothing is out of bounds for me, so what you'll see is all of it. And while I may, sometimes, censor myself, I'm not going to be kind nor politically correct in most of my rants. Just so you know.
So, relax, open your mind a bit, read, enjoy and hopefully some of what I say will make you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)