Being Blue in a Red Zone

I READ IT ON THE NET, SO IT MUST BE TRUE

2008-10-15T13:08:00.007-07:00

Recently, I was discussing the upcoming Presidential election with a fellow attorney who I thought was an Obama supporter like myself. For simplicity sake, I'm going to call my friend "Posie". After a few seconds I noticed my friend had a pained expression on her face and then she came out with, "I've heard some really bad things about Obama lately."

I asked her what she'd heard and she replied, "I've heard that Obama is not an American citizen." To this I exclaimed, "He was born in Hawaii!"

Posie shook her head and claimed that Obama's birth certificate had been falsified. There was a young clerk from Posie's office sitting next to her who was nodding her head in agreement with Posie.

I asked what else had Posie heard that was "bad" about Obama. Posie didn't hesitate and came out with, "He's a Muslim." More nods from her clerk.

I asked where Posie and her clerk who had imposed herself into the conversation had heard these ridiculous claims, and the clerk solemnly told me, "I read it on the Internet."

Bingo! Following the lead of former generations who's mantra was "I read it in the newspaper, so it must be true," the new unimpeachable source is the almighty Internet.

Now, to be honest, I use the Internet all the time. I think that it is a wonderful communications device but I'm not gullible enough to believe all that I read on the Net any more than I believe everything I hear on television news.

When Posie and her friend confronted me with these verifiability false claims about Senator Obama, I pointed out that Barrack had been "vetted" for two years. The "false birth certificate" had been proven to be unfounded. I also mentioned that I have read both of the Senator's books and believe him when he says he is a Christian.

I was met with looks which told me Posie and the clerk thought I was deranged.

Therefore, I have decided to spread the word about all of the negative, often bizarre, things that I've heard about Senator McCain and Governor Palin. My sources are unimpeachable. I read them on the net or friends told me they'd read these facts on the net. Here goes:

1. McCain fathered a Black child in South Carolina. We all know that this is true because the Bush/Rove campaign of 2000 used it to beat the senator in that state's primary. Have you heard McCain deny it during this campaign?

2. McCain is really an atheist who frequently makes fun of respected religious leaders. Remember when McCain criticized the late Jerry Falwell as being an "agent of intolerance"? So what if McCain later changed his tune to attract the religious right vote. That just proves the third fact that I've heard about McCain:

3. McCain is the king of flip-floppers. Not only has he flipped on Falwell, McCain voted against his own Immigration Bill. He was against off-shore drilling for years, but now he claims it's the only way to gain energy independence. McCain was the King of De-Regulators for 26 years (along with his buddy Phil "Americans are a bunch of whiners" Graham. Now? McCain suddenly wants to regulate everything and stop those evil Wall Street grimy golden parachute boys.

4. McCain is terminally ill. How do I know? I read it on the Internet. For God's sake, he's had cancer four times. And, folks, he's 72 with a history of bad health.

5. McCain has the temperament of a deranged pit bull. When his own lovely millionairess wife Cindy teased him about his receding hairline, he responded with a series of invectives which ended up with "You f*cking cunt." Even if own fellow Republican Senate members have said that having McCain with his finger on the nuclear button "sends shivers up their spines."

Let's move to the moosehunting mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

1. Palin is really a Russian spy. She confessed to Katie Couric that she looks at Russia all the time. Why? She's picking up secret codes to destroy the U.S.

2. Palin supports Alaska's secession from the U.S.A. Her hubby was a member of the of the Alaska Independence Party founded by Joe Vogler who stated: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government...And, I won't be buried under their damn flag." Sarah Palin greeted opened the 2008 Convention of te AIP with words of praise.

3. Sarah Palin had an affair with her husband's former business partner, Brad Hanson. As Palin was being nominated as McCain's VP, Hanson was asking the court to seal his divorce file.

4. Todd Palin acted as "co-governor" with Sarah in Alaska. He took an active part in the now infamous "Troopergate" firing of the Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner.

5. Sarah Palin, contrary to having been vindicated by the investigation against her on Troopergate, was found to have abused her office.

6. Sarah Palin was baptized by a witch doctor and is therefore a practicing witch.

7. Palin was on her basketball team in high school and is rumored to have had relationships with lesbians.

These are only a few of the "truths" that I've read on the Internet and from such unimpeachable sources as the National Enquirer. Please feel free to circulate these facts on the Internet so that the "real" McCain and Palin can be uncovered.

THE VP DEBATE: FACTS VS. FANTASY

2008-10-02T21:07:00.000-07:00

As a former debater in high school and college, I'm somewhat offended that the political events known as "Presidential or Vice-Presidential Debates" are even classified as debates. But, that's just a personal prejudice against the "debate" process that now exists.

Tonight, while watching the "debate" between Senator Biden and Governor Palin, there were moments which can be only classified as surreal. Now, it's common for politicians not to answer the exact question that is asked in almost any context. However, Mrs. Palin took a road seldom traveled down in a national "debate". She not only failed to answer the questions she was asked, she even stated in a gloating fashion that "I may not answer the questions the way you (Biden) or the moderator wants me to. I'm talkin' straight to the American people."

This might appeal to the "Joe Sixpacks" or some of the right wing fanatics as a form of dissing the press but I felt that I was listening to a woman who had a strict agenda from which she was not going to stray. That agenda was: I am going to give answers that can be used as sound bites which are in lockstep agreement with the McCain campaign.

Senator Biden, on the other hand, managed to answer most of the moderator's questions except when he had to respond to one of the many false characterizations (or lies) spoken by Mrs. Palin.

I have previously written in another blog about the propensity of McCain and Palin to lie about everything. That methodology was followed again by the Alaskan governor. She continued her lies that Senator Obama plans to raise taxes. But, more importantly, she kept insisting that the all-time "King of De-Regulation", Senator McCain, was now going to fight all those terrible Wall Street robber barons and predatory lenders. Of course, she failed to mention that those "mean" folks were able to do what they have done precisely because of what McCain has voted for time and again: de-regulation.

Thankfully, Senator Biden was present to inject actual facts into the debate. After Mrs. Palin had used the word "maverick" three or four hundred times to describe McCain, Biden responded with several important votes by the Arizona senator which hurt children, schools, our military and veterans. The so-called "maverick" of the senate has voted with the Bush administration over 90% of the time. Some maverick.

One of the most surreal moments of Palin's fanciful view of reality occurred when she was asked about the job of Vice-President. Once more showing her total ignorance of what the U.S. Constitution says, she stated that she wanted to increase the powers of the Vice-President due to the flexibility allowed in the Constitution. Once more, thankfully, Senator Biden pointed out that the Constitution is quite clear about the duties of the Vice-President. No where does that document give any flexibility to increase powers.

Why is this important? Why, indeed, is it quite frightening? Because, as Senator Biden pointed out, "the idea of expanding that office came from Cheney who he pointed out is probably the worst VP in U.S. history." The fact is, the expansion of both Presidential and Vice-Presidential powers is the dream of the neo-cons who don't really believe in the separation of powers.

Throughout the debate, Senator Biden exhibited a complete grasp of the factual situation not only in the U.S. but in the entire world. Mrs. Palin, on the other hand, winked and "shouted out to the third graders back home" and exhibited a total lack of understanding of what the world situation is. To the specifics mentioned by Biden to fix the ailing economy, Palin kept saying that Maverick McCain was going to shoot down all those fat cats (who he has protected for 26 years).

I think that it's safe to say that we won't be seeing Mrs. Palin on any more interview shows. I'm sure that the people who already liked her thought she did a great job tonight ignoring the questions and zapping the media and Senator Obama. What she failed to do at any time in this "debate" was give specifics about how the McCain/Palin administration would do anything different than the Bush administration.

As Senator Biden repeated in the debate, this is the most important election that we have ever voted in. Let's not waste our vote by electing a team that doesn't know the meaning of the word "change." Let's send Mrs. Palin back to Alaska to shoot moose and hire more of her cronies. The job of Vice-President of the United States needs to be filled by a person who knows actual facts, not just talking points.

IT WORKED FOR HITLER AND ROVE SO MCCAIN/PALIN CAMPAIGN ADOPTS BIG LIE POLICY

2008-09-17T22:34:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin did not know what the "Bush Doctrine" was. No surprise there. However, it is obvious that she and her running mate, John McCain, do understand one lesson from history:

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

While it turns out that Hitler is erroneously claimed to have said that (he was actually referring to his concept of "Jewish lies" in Mein Kampf), both he and Joseph Goebbels certainly utilized that basic propaganda technique.

More recently, the "Big lie" policy was used by the George Bush campaign in the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina to spread a rumor that John McCain had a black child in that state. Of course, Bush and Karl Rove really went to town in the 2004 election with the help of the Swift Boat liars in attacking John Kerry's war record. Those lies were not only examples of the "big lie" policy but also the Rove concept that the opponent should be attacked where he is strongest.

So, now we have the same John McCain who was so shabbily treated in 2000 as the head of his party's Presidential ticket. Surely, McCain, who has promised "a clean campaign" would not stoop to that same destructive "big lie" policy, would he?

Hmm, let's look at the very recent past.

1. Probably the most disgusting lie that McCain/Palin have been telling and using as a television commercial is the one about Barrack Obama "sponsoring a sex-ed bill for kindergarten children in Illinois." The purpose of the bill which Obama backed was to warn young children of sexual predators, not to teach them sex-ed "before they can read." McCain continues to defend this ad.

2. Just last week, as Sarah Palin was seeing her son and his fellow soldiers off to Iraq, Mrs. Palin linked 9/11 to Iraq. Although Dick Chaney still spews this nonsense, that assertion has proven to be totally false. Big lie repeated over and over.

3. In what surely will rank as one of the silliest and most hypocritical lies of this or any other campaign, McCain recoiled in fake horror and claimed that Obama had just called Sarah Palin a pig. What a complete idiot this man is. The goofball senator from Arizona had used this same "lipstick on a pig" quote several times against Hillary Clinton. Obama was obviously not referring to Palin but to McCain's blind following of Bush policies with the economy, energy, education and Iraq. Big lie repeated over and over.

4. Minutes after McCain shocked the nation with his announcement that the totally unqualified governor from Alaska was going to be his running mate, Sarah Palin stood in front of America and claimed that "I stopped to the Bridge to Nowhere". She further lied then and later that she had fought against pork barrel projects in Wasilla and the state of Alaska.

What is astounding about the "Bridge to Nowhere" lie, is that after it has been proven to be a lie, Palin and McCain keep repeating it. The dynamic duo even put it in a television commercial. Palin only came out against the bridge after Congress killed it (she had previously stated publicly that she was for it) and the money stayed in Alaska anyway for another pork project.

As to "pork", Mrs. Palin could have been "Miss Pork Barrel" of Alaska. For her home town of 7000 or so folks, she hired a lobbyist who obtained over $26 million worth of pork for Wasilla. Since she has been governor, Alaska has received over $400 million in pork. More lies, bigger lies told over and over.

5. Perhaps the biggest and most absurd lie of all to come out of the McCain/Palin camp is their assertion that they will be the "Agents of Change". In a column by Jared Bernstein, he shows how insane this lie is:

"...the hypocrisy of their agenda--McCain/Palin's plans on the war and the economy are, if anything, Bush on steroids (more war, no timetables, far more tax cuts for the wealthiest."

6. Just today, (9/18/08) Mrs. Palin has come out with a new reason for firing the law enforcement Commissioner in Alaska. Remember, before, the story was that the commish wouldn't fire that "nasty, mean trooper who threatened Palin's family." Now, the Palin lie machine says that she fired the commissioner because he tried to obtain federal funds to fight the sexual assault problem in Alaska. She was against that money although Alaska has the highest per capita sexual assault and incest problem in the nation.

7. In Palin's acceptance speech at the Republican convention, she pointed out that she is a strong friend of children with special needs. Maybe some children. But, Palin vetoed $250.000 in funds which the Alaska legislature had voted for the Special Oympics. Guess those kids weren't special enough for the moosehunting Palin.

8. Both McCain and Palin keep repeating the lie (naturally) that Obama will raise taxes while they lower taxes. Several economists and independent research groups have pointed out that Obama's plan to reduce taxes for 95% of the population will lead to lower taxes than the McCain plan.

I could go on and on about the campaign being waged by McCain and Palin. Amazingly, even Karl Rove pointed out that their commercials have gone "too far". What is not only astounding, but very frightening, is that both Republican candidates now lie about virtually everything. Today, McCain suddenly is the "Regulator" of Wall Street and banks after a lifetime of being against regulations. I firmly believe that the lies that McCain and Palin have told are catching up with them. People are not as stupid as these two people seem to believe.

Palin, for example, is about as far away from being a feminist as is humanly possible. One example? She backed her sheriff's policy of charging the rape victims for the sexual assault kits that they used. For God's sake, the victims should pay after going through a rape?

Finally, I want to quote Mr. Bernstein again in what is the ultimate problem with liars in power. In pointing out the failures which lead to lying, Mr. Bernstein stated:

"They are telling lies, and liars make fatal leaders."

Think Hitler. Think Stalin. Think Mao. And, think about the lies which lead this country to war in Iraq.

It is time to show the liars that their way is the highway to nowhere. The Bridge to the future will be built by Senators Obama and Biden.

MCCAIN: A REBEL IN NAME ONLY

2008-09-04T21:37:00.000-07:00

I haven't added my thoughts to this site for a long time. However, tonight, as I fought to stay awake during the boring acceptance speech of John McCain, I noticed an amazing pattern. The senator from Arizona who likes to call himself a maverick was attempting to distance himself from the Bush administration and, for that matter, much of the Republican Party in recent history.

I was watching the speech on MSNBC and I was stunned that none of the news analysts or either anchor saw the enormous gap in logic in McCain's speech. McCain criticized the record of the Bush Administration until he was almost as blue in the face as the screen behind him. But, he failed to mention (for obvious reasons) that "McCain, The Maverick" had voted with that same administration over 90% of the time in the last eight years.

For less obvious reasons, the MSNBC news team, which I usually admire, totally failed to mention this lack of logic. Instead, Chris Matthews gushed like a lovelorn teenager that "McCain had divorced himself from his party and Bush" and that McCain should jump in front of Obama in the polls.

As I continued to watch, I was further astounded that a former Bush speechwriter who now writes for the Washington Post (I don't remember his name) gave the single best assessment of McCain's speech. He pointed out that, except for the personal tale of McCain's POW days, the speech totally lacked any substance and would not appeal to the voters who wanted to know McCain's plan to solve our economic woes.

To her credit, Rachel Maddow pointed out that McCain "spent a several boring minutes giving a detailed analysis of his proposed economic plan" which was virtually identical to the failed Bush policies of the last eight years.

Another interesting point that nobody seemed to notice is that Senator Obama listed 29 specific areas of change that he would bring to the White House. He included tax cuts for the majority of U.S. citizens, tax incentives for companies that kept jobs in the U.S. and penalties for companies that exported jobs. Each Republican speaker, including McCain and the moosehunting beauty queen from Alaska chose to lie about Mr. Obama's proposed changes. Instead, they trotted out the old tried and true Republican mantra that "Democrats will raise your taxes, and Republicans will cut spending and lower your taxes."

Hmm. Interesting that Republicans have been in control of Congress for most of the last 16 years and in control of the White House for the last 8 years and the only tax cuts of significance have been for the richest 1% of the population. Furthermore, the Clinton surplus which Bush inherited has now turned into the largest deficit in this country's history.

Once again, McCain had the audacity to criticize his party for not following the Republican fiscal policies, but the reality is that he was right in there voting for nearly everything that Bush asked for. What a hypocrite. As many commentators have said over the last several months, the McCain of 2000 would not vote for the McCain of 2008.

This McCain has reversed himself on the shameful tax cuts for the rich. He voted time and again for spending increases but voted against the G.I. Bill to help returning veterans. And, perhaps most shamefully, McCain has reversed himself of the torture of POW's by the United States. That is not only shameful but it is incredibly shocking considering what he went through in Viet Nam.

One final point. As Senator Obama and nearly every other Democrat has said, we should honor Senator McCain for his service to his country in Viet Nam. However, once again, the McCain of olden days would not recognize the new, and unimproved McCain. In those olden days, McCain did not talk about his days as a POW (just as most war heroes don't like to talk about what they did in the war). Now, almost without fail, almost every Republican speaker plus McCain himself trots out the "I was a hero in the war speech." In fact, when McCain is questioned about almost any policy on which he has admitted weakness (the economy), he quickly changes the subject to his days as a POW.

This country is faced with problems that are as serious as any time in my lifetime of 61 years. We have have been led to the brink of economic failure. We have started a war against a country that was never a threat to us. We have tortured prisoners for the first time in our glorious history. We have seen our own constitutional rights violated by an overzealous president who in the name of "national security" has allowed our phone calls to be taped and our e-mails to be read. The reputation of the United States, once the shining example of freedom for the world, is now compared to the old Soviet Union.

John McCain has been a part of all of the failed policies which have led us to this brink of disaster. Barrack Obama promises changes that will at least move us back to the days where we can again be admired and liked by the people around the world.

Please don't fall for the "I'm a maverick...I'm a rebel." McCain is just Bush with less hair.

The Loss of a Friend

2007-11-09T23:12:00.000-08:00

It has been a while since I wrote by last entry here. I've always talked about politics and my dissatisfaction with the Bush administration on both domestic and foreign policy.

Tonight, my blog is very personal. While I was working on a few files at my office this morning, I received a frantic phonecall from my young, but extremely intelligent and caring legal secretary. She had the day off to travel to a resort with her husband but something was obviously wrong. She was crying so hard that I could barely understand her. My mind raced at thoughts that something had happened to her or her husband. Perhaps a plane crash.

Instead, as she composed herself, I understood her words, "S. killed himself today." I won't mention S.'s name nor my secretary's for privacy reasons, but I, too, was devastated. S. was in his late 30's and left two children, a 19 year old son and a one year old son.

A few months ago, S. had expressed an interest in moving in with me and the lawyer I office with. We were interested as we both liked the young man (young to us as I am 61 and my fellow lawyer is in his 50's.) We wanted him to join us but nothing ever came of it. As the months passed, we began to hear that S. had some serious personal problems that included alcohol and depression.

Time passed and I attended to legal seminars that sadly reported that lawyers have replaced dentists as the most "depressed" professionals (at least it was sad for me, although I have nothing against dentists.) I also learned that lawyers who practice Family (divorce) and Criminal law have the highest rate of suicide in the legal profession. I practice those areas of the law. So did S.

I know that attorneys are not the most beloved professionals around. "Lawyer jokes" don't really bother me unless they have a vicious side to them but I am disturbed that the general public and individual clients have such little respect for my profession.

I can't blame the general public or individual clients on S's death. I can blame myself for not doing more to intervene in his problems. However, there are other lawyers in town who did take a more active role in trying to help S. and their efforts failed.

The "personal" side of this blog is meant not only for attorneys but for anyone who sees a person who is depressed. We seem to be living in times where depression is at an all-time high. Even though we have drugs and doctors to help alleviate the "down" feelings, nothing is more important than the love and care of a friend or family member.

I don't ask you to "love" all lawyers. I don't even ask you to stop telling "lawyer" jokes. I just ask that attacks on the profession and on individual attorneys or any other professionals or non-professionals not be so mean-spirited.

I can't imagine the agony that S's loved ones are going through right now. He was a likable, intelligent young man who had so much promise. We will all wonder: Is there anything else I could have done? If you have a friend or loved one who is deeply depressed, please take the extra step and ask if you can help. It may save a life.

BUSH LECTURES US ABOUT THE NEEDS OF "POOR" CHILDREN

2007-10-18T21:16:00.000-07:00

Well, it was no surprise to see the Whitehouse gloating today about the failure of the House to pass a veto-proof S-Chips bill. The new press secretary actually stated that the vote was still another victory for the poor children in our country.

You know, it truly amazes me that the president of the United States and his lackies do not even know who the S-Chips legislation helps. Bush himself started the misinformation campaign when he claimed that the S-Chips program was for "poor" children. Of course, I don't think that Mr. Bush has had too much contact with poor children since he is from a wealthy family. But now, even his press secretary shows her ignorance by repeating the same nonsense.

Let's help these people out. "Poor children" are covered already by Medicaid. Got it? The S-Chips program covers those individuals who can't afford the outrageous premiums that insurance companies charge the rest of us.

The program also covers children who could not obtain private insurance due to pre-existing conditions which, of course, the insurance industry avoids like the plague. Anyone with a brain could not have missed this points if they watched any television news the last few weeks. With the exception of the Fox News folks who parrot Bush-talk ad nauseam, every network has described the program correctly.

It was encouraging that several House Republicans did vote against the president on this issue. While it is tempting to join in the strong condemnation of the Bush position on this subject as certain Democrats did, I believe that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's approach will more likely lead to a veto-proof bill in the near future.

If you watched the CBS News or Countdown tonight, you saws that an incredible 84% of Americans favor the S-Chips program and that 67% would be willing to pay higher taxes for the program.

I sent my own Congressman a message supporting this legislation but he's about as likely to vote for the bill as Rush Limbaugh is to praise it. However, the Republican party surely has the sense to figure out that this is still another nail in their coffins for the 2008 Election year.

I just keep asking myself: How can this be America? As Mrs. Pelosi pointed out, what we spend in a few weeks in Iraq would pay for the increase in the S-Chips program for a full year! These are our children and grandchildren we're talking about for God's sake. While Bush runs around saying he's protecting "poor children", he's really just protecting the private insurance industry.

I think that 14 votes can be obtained with a few small changes in this bill. Let's all tell our Congressmen and Congresswomen that we really do care about all of the children in this country.

HERE WE GO AGAIN!

2007-10-02T14:25:00.000-07:00

I'm sitting here listening to Pulizer-prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh (I've also seen the name spelled Hirsch) talking to Terry Gross on NPR's "Fresh Air" about the Cheney, uh, Bush administration's plan to attack Iran. Although Mr. Hersh is one of the finest journalists on U.S. involvement in the Mideast, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Cheney and Bush having been pushing for a military attack on Iran for months, if not years.

For the last couple of years, the American public has been fed a steady line that Iran is "close to developing a nuclear weapon." Just as Iraq's WMD's turned out to be a load of manure, the intelligence on Iran's nuke program became less and less persuasive. In fact, the majority of the American public just didn't buy the "Iran nuke" capabilities at all. So, typical of the Cheney-Bush boys, when one "justification" for pre-emptive strikes against countries does not work, we've now been given a second reason for an attack: "We need to attack Iran because they support terrorists in Iraq."

Hersh points out in his article in The New Yorker that tactical nuclear attacks on Iran are unlikely. Instead, Cheney-Bush will most likely push conventional "surgical" strikes against specific targets such as the "Revolutionary Guard" in the country.

But, based on the Cheney-Bush administration's history of lying to the American public and the world in general, how do we know that the U.S. military won't use nukes.?

What Hersh also points out in his article and on Fresh Air is that there will have to be a ground force sent to Iran although it won't be a large. However, with our military, especially the Army and Marines, already spread out to the point of breaking, how can Cheney-Bush even consider this insane idea.

Hersh also makes a valid point that our diplomacy with Iran goes something like this: "Get your act straight, or we're going to blow the hell out of you." Hmm. Some diplomacy. Given the fact that we have actually just completed a successful diplomatic breakthough with one of the other members of the "Axis of Evil" countries (North Korea), why in the hell can't Cheney-Bush at least try talking to Iran?

At 60 years of age, I find myself becoming more and more disappointed in what passes as leadership in this nation. Not only are we "led" by a stoneage mentality president, our national media, with a few exceptions, are also following in perfect lockstep with this insanity. One of the exceptions is MSNBC and Keith Obermann in particular. ABC and CBS, on the other hand, have been showing us daily what a bad guy the Iranian president is. Just as almost all of the media practically acted as cheerleaders for our invasion of Iraq, those same reporters are frequently not asking the right questions in regard to Iran.

What are those questions? Well, for one thing, why do Cheney and Bush think that the U.S. should be the police force for the world? Secondly, with all the "bad" guys in the world, why do Cheney and Bush always want to attack Mideast countries? Could it be that "oil" is the reason for nearly all of Cheney-Bush thinking?

Folks, we've been here before. Just a few years ago, our president talked us into a war that we should never have fought. His advisors said the war would be over in a few months. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" and then allowed several thousand Americans to die or suffer life-long physical and mental injuries. We were told that "freedom would be given to the people of Iraq. We were told that the infrastructure of Iraq would include improvements in schools, utilities and civil rights for women. NONE OF THAT HAS HAPPENED.

Please, let's call Cheney-Bush's hand on this nonsense of still another war. This will only end up being another way to kill Americans so that the military-industrial complex will be able to continue to make billions of dollars.

I, for one, am sick and tired of listening to Cheney-Bush lobby for attacking other countries while they veto health care for U.S. citizens, allow our infrastructure to collapse, and take our political freedoms away from us in the name of "anti-terror."

WHAT HAPPENED TO MR. "COMPASSIONATE" CONSERVATIVE?

2007-09-20T20:24:00.000-07:00

I'm confused. Back when Gov. Bush was in Texas, he liked to call himself a "compassionate conservative." You know, the kind of conservative that cares more about the folks out there in voterland than the big, bad corporations. In fact, he even worked with the Democratic controlled Texas legislalure to at least give some validity to this "compassionate" leaning.

So, today, as I watched our fearless president jump all over Move-on.org's recent ad against the general that he put in a political situation, there was another story that showed where this man's heart really is. While a bi-partisan group in Congress proposed a bill that would add $35 billion to the S-Chips program for the children of our country, Mr. "Compassionate" shrugged and said "That's too much money. It might discourage people from getting private insurance."

Hmm. The S-Chip or State Children's Health Insurance Program was originally created in 1997 to provide health insurance to eligible uninsured children. On ABC's nightly news, several individuals who could not afford health insurance but whose benefits have been cut basically said without S-Chip benefits, their children would go without medicine or some other necessity like food (along with the parent, of course."

What part of the Chip program does this phony compassionate president not understand? He certainly has compassion for the military-industrial complex which will spend that $35 billion in Iraq in less than six months! But, hell, we're doing such great things for that country. Oh, most of the people still don't have water or electricity but we've "given" them such political freedom that they don't mind these hardships. Bull.

I'm not even sure that Bush knows the meaning of "compassionate." The man has refused to help those who need our help the most--our children. I know that George himself grew up with the same silver spoon that his father did. George and the rest of the Bush clan never had to worry where the money for food or prescriptions. Hell, Bush had a nanny for his twins when they were babies when the rest of us were changing diapers ourselves.

I urge you to write your Congressman and Senator to support the inclusion of this money into a plan that has actually helped people in this country. Let's not waste another minute on the fake compassion of our president.

How Stoopid Does Bushbrain Think We Are?

2007-09-15T22:17:00.000-07:00

Firstest of all, I needs to interduce mahself. Mah name is Jed P. Fuddplucker but ewe kin jest call me Jed or P. if'n ewe don't have much time. Ah'm the falter ego of Mike Holmes, that leftwing feller who don't know he lives 'round nuthin' but John Birchtree folks in West Texas.

Bein' a falter ego is tuff coz Holmes won't let me out 'cept when he's sleepin'. Ah knowed that Mike's been p.o.'d 'bout this here feller in the Whiteouthouse up in Warshington D.C. this week coz his blud presure is way up. The title to this here blog (by firstest) is wot Mike haz ben thinkin' 'bout all week.

Ewe see, we cain't figger out this Bushbrain feller's fuzzy navel math. Back in Janary of this yeer Bushbrain dun talked us into surgin' a bunch more of our troops to Irack. Now, to me, we should never have ben thar in the firstest place. And it seemed that the folks who voted in 2006 dint think much of the war either. But here we wint and sint another 30,000 younguns to fite in that dern un-civil war. Sense then, the Irack polyticians ain't dun worth a bucket of warm spit in wot that Bushbrain feller said wuz there "benchmarks." Hell, Ah dint even know wot benchmarks wuz and I giss those Irackies dint either.

Enyhow, this last week Bushbrain wuz back on the tellervision jest tellin' us another bunch of lyes. Hell, when Ah see Bushbrain talk, Ah knows he's a lyin' wen Ah sees his lips movin' (Ah know that's an old joke but with this moron, it's true.) Hells bells, Bushy had this fellar Petrayus up afore them Congress folks havin' all kindy trouble with even the Republicanners.

An' wot duz Bushbrain cook up fer us pore feable peeple? Sez he's gonna bring 'bout 5000 troops home. Onliest trouble iz, those troops wuz do home anyway. Mah math ain't so good, but I reckon Bushy's "bringin' home" 'bout 2% of our youngun's and we all are 'sposed to git all teary-eyed that he's endin' the war. Pardone the Frenchy talk, but that's one lode of bullshit. Even Bushbrain sez the Irack folks ain't a'meetin' them benchymarks.

So, folks out thar in blogland, Ah'm back to mah 'riginal querstion: how stoopid duz Bush think we are? I know'd that one movie fellar named Forrest Gump sed "stoopid is as stoopid does" and I think that's Bushbrain's motto. Ever time Ah see this "feerless leader" who looks liken Alfred E. Newman, it makes me want to wake Mike Holmes up. But Ah giss Ah don't want to raise his bloodpressure. In fact, Ah think Ah feel Mike awakin' so I gotta git. This here is Jed P. Fuddplucker sayin' Ah'm sick 'n tired to all this Bush balony.

STILL BLUE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS

2007-09-11T20:44:00.000-07:00

It's the type of day on which we all remember where we were when it happened. September 11, 2001. That day joins the other "days of infamy" such as Pearl Harbor and the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

I was in Leon, France with my wife as we were near of end of a wonderful European vacation when I saw the demise of the Twin Towers on CNN. We were in shock as was most of the world. The tour we were on consisted on one third Americans, one third Australians, and one third New Zealanders. Our Aussie and New Zealand friends had lost some people in the towers but their sympathy for us was tearfully comforting.

The French people were extremely gracious to us for the next several days even giving us free phone calls back to the states. The world grieved with us as our president vowed to "get those responsible" for what became known as simply 9/11.

Now, I sit here six years later only to see yet another Bin Laden videotape shown on my television set. I sit here six years later watching a general and an ambassador trying to justify our continuing war against a people and a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

I cried when I saw the towers fall. I cried when I saw the Pentagon hit and when the plane crashed in Pennsylvania. So did millions around the world but the pain and suffering caused by the terrorists on that fateful day has never been answered. Instead of going after the masterminds of the plot, our fearless team of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield et. al chose to send our volunteer troops into the wrong harm's way.

Why am I still so blue (here I describe the melancholy feeling, not the political blue) after all of these years? These six, long, deadly years? Well, for one thing new information keeps being uncovered that show that our president has lied to us from the very start about Iraq. Just last week, a September 6, 2007, article on Salon.com highlighted the facts that Bush knew that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. CIA director told him that his sources pointed out that no weapons existed but Bush just ignored him. The fact that Bush lied about the WMD does not surprise me. I'm not sure he's capable of telling the truth.

Does that really surprise anyone? Hell, even from my little spot in West Texas, I wrote against the war in Iraq on Epinions.com on January, 8, 2003. Bush didn't give a damn whether or not Saddam had WMD. His later reason that we entered the war to "free the citizens of Iraq" was also a load of manure. Hell, Bush and Cheney wanted to attack Iraq for oil and revenge for Saddam's attack on the first Bush president.

And, more importantly and even more sinister, the Iraq war is simply the crowning achievement of an administration bound and determined to create an Imperial Presidency. On NPR's "Fresh Air" of 9/5/07, Charlie Savage summarized his findings about this topic. He's written a book entitled "In Pursuit of the Imperial President." The book is still more cause for me to be depressed or blue. I should have seen it coming. Savage points out that the neo-cons around Bush have been pushing for this new form of King Bush for decades. Cheney has been pissed off since Congress weakened the presidency during the days of his first boss, Tricky Dick Nixon. Savage has also written extensively about one major tool in the advancement of Imperial Presidency--the infamous signing statements.

Bush has utilized these signing statements more than any president in history to nullify or amend congressional bills as he signs them into law. This, along with the Bush administration's attacks on the rights of all citizens and ultimately on the U.S. Constition are enough to cause me to be permanently blue.

So, what can we do? What can I do? Well, for one thing, I would like to think that Congress is going to do something about all this insanity. We've had a lot of talk, but little action. I can write my Congressman and the Senators of Texas but, since they are all conservative R's, I won't get very far. I think that we all ought to "get mad as hell and not take this anymore" (to paraphrase a character in the movie "Network") and call for Bush's and Cheney's impeachment. They've lied; they've taken consitutional rights from us, they've ignored the law and put our young men and women in danger by re-defining "torture" and ignoring the Geneva Convention rules. It's time for Bush to come back to Crawford, Texas and continue to clear brush. At least there, he wouldn't be killing Americans.

Being Blue in a Red Zone

2007-09-05T08:16:00.000-07:00

This is my first attempt at entering the blogosphere. I'm a late bloomer into this electronic world but I've noticed some great writing on blogs so I thought I would throw my hat in the ring.

The title to my blog refers to the fact that I am a Liberal in the middle of one of the "reddest" political zones in the country--Odessa, Tx. Both Daddy Bush and W Bush lived here in earlier days and the majority of folks still buy most of the nonsense that our clueless leader in Washington spews forth.

About this color thing. Red. Hmm. Seems I remember a time when that color was equated (especially by card-carrying Joe McCarthy-like Republicans) with that evil menace known as the Soviet Union. Those of us old enough to remember the 50's amd 60's remember the RED SCARE. Hell, we even had drills in my elementary school to "protect ourselves" in event of nuclear attack or tornado by hunkering down under our desks. Man, I felt safe.

Anyway, Red is now the color code for the R's while Blue is used for Demos. I know it really started on the election nights when the media moguls wanted to differentiate between parties on the maps but I stiil think it funny that R's are represented by Red.

I propose a number of other colors for our political maps. Purple has already benn used by Time and Newsweek to signify the reality that most states have significant elements of Blue and Red. Green enclaves could exist throughout the country for environmentalists who want to save our planet. I think many members of both parties should be given a special Yellow designation for failing to stand up to Bush on Iraq and abuses of our civil liberties. Hell, Congress, for the most part, still acts as though Shrub (to borrow Molly's nickname for W) is popular in this country.

Bush has reached new lows in popularity in this nation and he has caused us to be the most hated country in the world. I have another special color for W, Cheney, Gonzales, and Rove-Zebra. For their actions which have violated the rights of every member of our society in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution, this gang of four should be outfitted in the same outfits that prisoners wear.

The possibilities for color-coding our political maps are endless. I'm end my little blog here and ask for any suggestions the reader might have about content or "colors for the map."