Government Gone Bad
The sorry state of the U.S. Government. From the war
with Afghanistan and Iraq to tax cuts, Israel, Iran and the FCC. What's happening to
our government? Why don't people seem to care? A look at some of the things wrong with our GOVERNMENT.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003 :::
Bush is a Bad Roll Model for Our Children
We all want our children to become the best that they can be intellectually, emotionally and spiritually. We know that children learn from observing adults around them and from authoritative figures. They learn by example.
Seeing how the President of the United States is considered by our children and some adults to be one of the most authoritative people in the country, (even if he isn’t) what he says and does has some impact on the their values.
Americans must ask themselves this question: What are the children learning from this sad episode in our countries history? The sad truth is that our children are learning from the Bush Administration and the people who support him that it’s okay to tell a lie to get something you really desire. They’re learning not to let the real truth get in the way of their desires. If you have to tell more lies to cover for the first lie so be it. The only thing that matters is that you get what you want.
President Bush himself has never admitted to being a liar, but anybody with an open mind now knows or should know that the uranium from Niger story is nothing but a lie. Some in this Administration continue to call the lie technically correct and that President Bush didn’t know at the time of his State of the Union Address that the story was based on a forgery (another lie to cover for the first lie).
Who can forget the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky affair? Remember the uproar from the republicans about how Bill Clinton was destroying the values of this country. How his actions were sending the wrong message to the children.
By focusing on the private life of the president the republicans were the ones destroying values in this country. The children wouldn’t have received that wrong message if the republicans didn’t make a big deal about something that had nothing to do with how this country is run nor did it have anything to do with our national security.
In his Acceptance Speech for the republican nomination on August 3, 2000 at the RNC Convention in Philadelphia, Bush said, “Our generation has a chance to reclaim some essential values, to show we have grown up before we grow old. But when the moment for leadership came, this administration [the Clinton Administration] did not teach our children, it disillusioned them.” If Clinton disillusioned the children then so did Bush. He’s also unfortunately teaching the children that it’s ok to lie and that it’s ok to strike first at your perceived enemies to be sure that they don’t strike you sometime in the future. He is also teaching the children not to except personal responsibility and to search for a scapegoat instead.
In his Inaugural Address on January 20, 2001 in the U.S. Capitol, Bush said “America, at its best, is a place where personal responsibility is valued and expected. Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats; it is a call to conscience.”
Too bad Bush doesn’t practice what he preaches. Who was responsible for those 16 words in his State of the Union Address? Bush most certainly didn’t take responsibility for those sixteen words. The scapegoats were George Tenet and Steven Hadley. I guess Bush thinks that personal responsibility is for others and it is not expected of him. Apparently he has no conscience. Is this what we want for our country? Is this really what we want our children to learn? I don’t think so.
Many Republicans want to force their morality onto others, but from what I've been seeing in the Whitehouse I don't want any part of their kind of morality.
::: posted by Alan at 9:42 PM
Monday, August 11, 2003 :::
They Must Be Brought to Justice
Americans don’t like to be lied to especially on matters of war and peace. From the evidence available there is no doubt that we were lied to on a range of issues regarding the invasion of Iraq. The three lies of most importance are (1) Iraq’s supposed attempt to acquire Uranium from Niger, (2) The imminent Chemical and Biological Weapons that we knew Iraq had and according to Donald Rumsfeld where at least some of them were located (3) The al Qaeda link to Saddam Hussein.
These three lies led to the invasion of a sovereign country causing the death and severe injuries to many American troops and many innocent deaths and injuries among Iraqi civilians. This invasion did nothing to help eliminate terrorism as the Bush Administration insists and in fact will very likely cause more terrorism in the future. We are now bogged down in a guerilla war in Iraq and the troops now in Iraq are not available for where they are actually needed. We now have an unfinished war in Afghanistan and an unfinished war in Iraq.
Some are calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush; some are calling for his defeat in the 2004 presidential election. Neither impeachment nor loosing the next election is punishment enough for the crimes committed. The grave consequences of this invasion based on lies by the Bush Administration, calls for the severest of punishments. Because of the seriousness of the crimes this justice must be carried out just as swiftly as President Bush makes decisions about serious matters affecting this country and the world. There must be little room for debate and argument.
If we are to return integrity to the highest office of the land we must do what is necessary to prevent similar events from ever occurring again. Because of the blatant misuse of power an example must be made of those responsible for the lies. The message must be sent that the leaders of this country will be held accountable for their actions and that they are not above the law.
Those responsible for these crimes must be prosecuted for the murder of innocent people and the pain and suffering they caused. Anything short of that is a miscarriage of justice and further discredits the United States in the eyes of honest people here at home and around the world.
::: posted by Alan at 7:36 AM
Sunday, August 10, 2003 :::
Are We Really Winning the War
President Bush is patting himself on the back for the good job he thinks he’s doing fighting terrorism. Bush says we’re winning the war on terrorism and he’s confident were doing the right thing. He points to the number of suspected terrorist killed or arrested and the fact that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power as proof that we are winning the war on terrorism. Never mind the fact that there are thousands more that can be recruited as terrorist. Never mind the fact that there is no evidence indicating that Saddam was involved with terrorism and never mind the fact that Saudi Arabia probably was.
Using Bush’s criteria for determining who is winning the war, the terrorist could say they are winning by pointing to the number of Americans being killed and injured, the American military equipment being destroyed (which cost money, something we don’t have, we’ll have to borrow it) and the fact that Osama Bin Laden has not been found.
With the bombing of the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad, the bombing of the Marriot Hotel in Jakarta and Washington warning of more terror attacks in Indonesia, the continued unrest in Iraq, the continued unrest in Afghanistan, the continued attacks on American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and with reports that Al-Qaeda is regrouping in Afghanistan, a good case can be made that it is too early to say we’re winning the war on terrorism.
It’s the same old don’t worry everything is going to be just fine optimistic outlook psychology that’s been used countless times by this Administration. This Administration and its followers are almost like a cult. The followers see a leader that can’t do any wrong even when the evidence is right there in front of their face and the evidence is plenty.
We were led to believe it would be a short war in Iraq, it’s not. We had the imminent WMD’s threat, still NO WMD’s found. We had the uranium from Niger LIE, it was a FORGERY. We had the mushroom cloud scare tactic, NO nuclear program found. We had the Al-Qaeda connection, NO Al-Qaeda connection has been found. We were told the major part of the war is over. If the major part of war took three weeks, why is it that after four months the minor part of the war continues with no end in sight? If the death toll continues at the present rate there will be more Americans killed in the minor part of the war then in the major part. Unless Mr. Bush doesn’t value American lives that would mean that the minor part of the war is actually the major part of the war and that would also mean that Bush was wrong when he said the major part of the war was over.
How much more proof do some people need before they realize they’re being misled and lied to and the deity that they adore and worship is nothing but a pathological liar who uses religion as a tool to manipulate the populace.
It’s called blind loyalty. Isn’t that exactly what happened in Germany under Hitler? To quote Thomas Jefferson: “When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny.” I don’t know about anybody else but I for one definitely fear the government.
The American people are being brainwashed and they don’t even know it. Of course that’s how brainwashing is supposed to work, you’re not supposed to know you’re being brainwashed.
Seeing how about 80% of people get most of their news from television it is the preferred propaganda tool. It worked very effectively as was seen in the run up to the war with Iraq. When you have a public that isn’t completely informed because of the incomplete, incompetent and biased news on U.S. television – which is more interested in taking a regional issue hyping it up and making it into a national soap opera then doing real indebt reporting of national interest - you have a public which is left ignorant of the real facts and can easily be misled.
Quote by Thomas Jefferson: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”
::: posted by Alan at 3:41 AM
Friday, August 08, 2003 :::
Judging from the criticism some Hollywood celebrities are getting from conservative talk show hosts you would think they committed a capital offence. From Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity from Joe Scarborough to Bill O’Reilly they all took their turn blasting celebrities that didn’t agree with their line of thinking.
How dare mere Hollywood celebrities let it be known where they stand on political issues, they howled. They don’t know anything about politics, they moaned. How dare they use their fame for political purposes, they cried. Just who do they think they are? They’re just the loony left living in gaga land. Nobody listens to them anyway, was the often repeated line.
If nobody listens to them anyway than why are the conservative talk show hosts making such a big deal about it? If nobody listens to them, then it doesn’t matter what they say, am I right? And if it doesn’t matter what they say then it makes no sense to talk about what they say. It’s a non issue. It doesn’t matter. That means the conservative talk show hosts are wasting everybody’s time by talking about what the celebrities say when nobody’s listening to what the celebrities say anyway.
Bashing celebrities for their political view when they’re not there to defend themselves seems to be a Joe Scarborough specialty. Former Republican Congressman turned talk show host (and a quitter, he resigned from Congress before his term was up) Joe Scarborough joined the chorus of celebrity bashers and broadcast a whole week of MSNBC’s Scarborough country from Hollywood, bashing celebrities he labeled as liberals every chance he could. This from a man who starts his TV show with “No passport required, NO MEDIA BIAS ALLOWED.” He fails to realize he is part of the media and he is himself biased. If he doesn’t know that he is biased how can he possibly know if somebody else is biased? I would suggest that Mr. Scarborough look up the meaning of the word bias.
Now that Arnold Schwarzenegger - a republican - announced he is running for governor of California are the conservative talk show hosts going to bash him? Or is Schwarzenegger somehow different than the rest of Hollywood celebrities? Will he be derided for using his fame to try to be elected to a public office? Will his viewpoints on politics be ok if they agree with those of the talk show hosts?
There is nothing wrong with Schwarzenegger running for public office. That’s the way it should be. If a person is qualified they should be able to run for public office no matter what their occupation. They should also be able to express their views. Just be prepared to be bombarded by the media frenzy covering the story that's sure to occure.
The point is all the ruckus about celebrities and politics is ridiculous and nothing more than a ploy used by certain cliques to push their own political agenda. They complain about celebrities using their fame and notoriety to push their political beliefs, but all the while the cliques are using national TV on a daily basis to push their own political agendas.
::: posted by Alan at 2:50 AM
Wednesday, August 06, 2003 :::
Thanks for the Lousy Eight Dollars Mr. President
Sorry folks but due to the present circumstances I won’t be helping the economy very much. I hope you accept my apologies. Don’t get me wrong I would really like to help, but my lousy $8 a week from the Bush tax cuts doesn’t go very far. That works out to $1.14 a day. Heck the tooth fairy pays better than that. Hey I guess I shouldn’t complain because after all that’s what some people in Third World countries make for a days work and here I am getting it for nothing, compliments of Mr. Bush. I don’t know about anybody else but it’s hard for me to feel any richer with an $8 increase in my weekly pay check.
How far does $8.00 go? Not very far. For eight bucks I could get a pizza as long as it wasn’t a large and as long as I didn’t get too many extra toppings. Eight bucks could get me into the movie theater but there would be nothing left to buy popcorn. If I were real careful in my selections I could get a meal for two at one of the fast food joints like MacDonald’s or Burger King and I might even get some change back. With eight bucks I could buy 5 gallons of gas and take a long drive in my car, but I wouldn’t have any money to spend along the way on the simple pleasures such as a burger and a cola.
I’m here to tell you $8.00 doesn’t go very far at all. In fact the extra $8.00 a week in my pay check is so imperceptible that I didn’t even realize I got a tax cut allowing me to “keep more of my own money.” The only way I knew I got a tax cut was by examining my pay stubs after hearing Bush say that all working Americans would be getting tax cuts. Upon checking my pay stubs, low and behold there it was an extra $8.00 per week.
“Every working American will get a tax cut” Bush said. Boy that sure sounds good doesn’t it? Bush should have said the average working American will get an insignificant tax cut while the millionaires will get a very significant tax cut.
While I get to keep an extra $450 a year or $8.00 a week of my “own money” the average millionaire gets to keep $93,500 a year or $1798 a week. That’s $1.14 a day for me and $256 a day for the millionaire. I guess that’s because some believe in their own mind that I’m not as productive as the millionaires, after all we can’t be taking money from the productive and giving it to the un-productive can we?
One thing is certain; I won’t be using my $8 a week to buy a new car or for that matter I won’t even be buying a used car. I won’t be using my $8 a week to take a fancy vacation or even a not so fancy vacation. I won’t be going on a big shopping spree or even a small shopping spree. I won’t be buying a new washing machine, dryer, refrigerator, carpeting, or any other big ticket household items. No I’ll probably just use the measly eight bucks to pay on my charge card which will have no effect on the economy at all.
So even though I’d love to take part in getting the economy going and help create jobs, at this time it is impossible for me to be of any help. I hope my apologies are accepted and I hope the millionaires have a good time in their endeavor of getting our economy going again. I’m confident they can do a much better job of spending money than an un-productive person like me. God Bless America.
::: posted by Alan at 8:32 PM
Tuesday, August 05, 2003 :::
A Presidency Surrounded by Controversy
Just about every policy of the Bush Administration is surrounded by controversy. Even before Bush officially became president on Inauguration Day there was controversy surrounding the election that put him in power. There was the controversy of people not being able to vote in the Florida election because they were fraudulently removed from the voter registration list, in a state whose governor is George W. Bush’s brother and whose Secretary of State, Katherine Harris used to work for the Republican Party. There was also the controversy over the counting of ballots with “hanging chads” and voter intent. The Supreme Court finally stopped the vote counting, effectively giving Mr. Bush the presidency adding to the controversy.
Bush didn’t waste any time before starting another controversy by withdrawing the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol. Almost immediately after he declared his administration would not require industry to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, President Bush delivered another blow to the world's climate by refusing to support the global warming treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol. This treaty, negotiated by more than 100 countries over a decade, calls for the 38 largest industrial nations to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 2012 to 5.2 percent below the levels in 1990. President Bush has stated that conforming with the accord is not in the U.S. interests. That last statement in itself is controversial.
Then came 9/11 and the controversial Patriot Act. The Patriot Act remains controversial, a total of 118 cities, towns, and counties have passed resolutions urging repeal.
Now we have the Iraq war which is the most controversial policy of all time, even worse than the Vietnam War. Before the start of the war in Iraq the large anti-war protest around the world were unprecedented. Never before in our history have there been so many people all around the world protesting what they considered to be an unjust war even before the war started.
It’s been nothing but controversy since before the war in Iraq started and it continues to be nothing but controversy today. We’ve had the uranium from Africa controversy, which was caused by the Bush Administration using false intelligence. If the Bush Administration hadn’t used false intelligence there would not have been a controversy. There’s the controversy about the number of troops needed to stabilize Iraq and the cost involved.
We have the WMD’s controversy. A controversy caused by Mr. Bush and his Administration. In their eagerness to go to war they used intelligence that is plain to see was not very good or it was hyped up intelligence, which leads to was Iraq an imminent threat to the U.S. mainland and its allies controversy. Mr. Bush went as far as to say Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. Any reasonable person now knows that Iraq was NOT an imminent threat to the U.S. or its allies as the bush administration claims.
Finally we have the tax cut controversy, the tax cuts that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the working people. Even some of the riches people in the U.S. people such as Warren Buffet who calls the tax cuts on dividends “dividend voodoo” says the tax cut is unfair.
To be fair Bush doesn’t get all the blame for the unfair tax cuts because many in congress both Democrats and Republicans voted for the tax cut package. That really isn’t surprising when you consider that 40 of the100 Senators are millionaires, some many times over, not including the price of their primary residence, which in some cases may exceed $1 million by itself.
Mr. Bush campaigned under the guise that he would unite the nation, but with all the controversy surrounding the Whitehouse since Bush has become president the nation is more divided than ever.
::: posted by Alan at 2:05 AM
Saturday, August 02, 2003 :::
When the rulers of this country enact laws and try to amend the Constitution to make certain acts a crime - because they think it is immoral - we’re in big trouble. Yet that is exactly what some inside and outside of government want to do, they want to legislate their morality because in their mind they believe certain acts are sinful.
Just about everybody can agree on the need for laws. Without laws there would be complete chaos. Because human nature is towards wickedness. We need laws to try to prevent as much wickedness as possible. But what is wickedness? People judge wickedness by their moral beliefs. And what are morals? Morals are just someone’s assertion that something is true without evidence. One persons morals can be different from another persons morals. That doesn’t make either person’s morals any more right or wrong than the other.
Where do people get their morals? People are either taught their morals by their church, their parents, or society. They may also analyze everything they’ve learned and make their own decision on their morality.
So how should a society determine what is moral? Some believe religion and the bible should determine what is moral. If that’s the case, which religion should determine that morality? There in lies the problem. Nobody can argue definitively that their morals are correct and somebody else’s morals are wrong because they have no evidence to prove it, they only have their beliefs.
Our Founding Fathers realized this fact when they were drafting the Constitution. They also knew about religious persecutions for moral reasons in England by the state established church. That’s why the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
In a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut Jefferson wrote “I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Building a wall of separation between church and state is pretty strong language. That certainly sounds to me like the Founding Fathers did not want the church deciding government policies and vise-versa. The Founding Fathers didn’t want a state sponsored religion and they didn’t want to deny the right of the people to believe in any religion that they choose along with the morals that that religion teaches.
The one moral concept that the vast majority of people can agree on is that it is immoral to cause harm to others. That’s it. That covers everything murder, rape, theft, destroying others property, purposely injuring another person, incest, and anything else that is harmful to others excluding hurt feelings. If we can’t say something because it might hurt someone’s feelings we loose the right to free speech. That’s the price one pays for living in a free society sometimes you hear or see things you don’t agree with.
That’s not to say that you can’t have other moral beliefs just that if everyone lived by the moral belief that a person does not cause harm to others the world would be a more humane place for everyone.
No one has the right to force their moral beliefs on anyone else through the enactment of laws, no matter how noble they believe it to be. Where does it all stop? Do we make contraception illegal because the church says sex for any purpose other than procreation is a sin? Do we throw people in jail for oral sex and masturbation because religion says it is sinful and immoral? What about the ultimate crime in some fanatics minds of homosexual sex acts? Do we throw all homosexuals in jail? Or maybe they should be burned at the stake.
We already punish people just for using marijuana - a victimless crime - because some think it is morally wrong. In actuality marijuana is no different than alcohol use (which some also believe is morally wrong). So why are we wasting the time and taxpayer money throwing people in jail for a victimless crime just to appease people who’s morality differs from that of the victim.
Governments job is supposed to be to serve and protect the people, not controll the people because of religious beliefs. I just wish people would stop trying to govern how other people live their lives just because they don’t agree with those life styles.
::: posted by Alan at 9:02 PM