June 01, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
CHRISTIAN TERRORISM THROUGH THE AGES
From the talk these days you would think that terrorism was a tactic exclusive to Moslems. But people who call themselves Christians advocate torture and terrorism. In the past, people who called themselves Christians launched the Crusades. This article talks about the scary poll numbers of people who say they are Christian and who support torture and targeting civilian populations in wartime. Interestingly, most Moslems don't support those tactics. This article by Margaret Kimberley is at www.blackagendareport.com:
Christians perpetrated the crusades, the inquisition, the slave trade and imperial adventures too numerous to mention. It may be comforting to pat ourselves on the back and consign those behaviors to past centuries. We are living in the 21st century after all. Who would use the name of the Christian God to justify mass killing? A majority of modern day American Christians, that's who.
Perhaps the argument used against Muslims should be applied to Christians instead. Their religion has been hijacked by fundamentalist fanatics while the non-fanatics remain silent. The term clash of civilizations is definitely a misnomer. There can be no clash unless both sides are in fact civilized. Any assertion of American civilization is clearly open to question.
WAR AND THE RULING CLASS
This article is by a film maker who has completed a documentary about the American ruling class. Members of the ruling class claim there is no such thing as a ruling class. But if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . . . The entrenchment of a ruling class dedicated to the same policies, whether they call themselves Democrats or Republicans, is inimical to our democracy. As the author points out, war and the threat of war have been used effectively by the ruling class to stall or halt social progress. The article by John Kirby is at www.commondreams.org:
Since President McKinley and the Spanish-American War, overseas adventures have been the oligarchy’s response to the public’s demand for reform. Whether it was Populists or Progressives, rank-and-file Republicans or Democrats leading the charge for domestic change, the major party bosses and their partners on Wall Street have worked together in “collusive harmony,” in the words of political historian Walter Karp, to divert the country from its just demands by embroiling them in deadly foreign entanglements.
Reform movements are an ever-present worry for both parties’ bosses, because any successful reform put forward by regular citizens and insurgents in Congress tends to excite the electorate with the possibility of actually controlling their own government. The ruling class well understands that as the engagement of the citizenry waxes, their own power wanes. And it is war and the threat of war that provide the best excuse for not passing social-welfare legislation, and calling anyone who demands it “unpatriotic.”
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
May 08, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH: WAR GOOD, ENVIRONMENT BAD
George W. Bush has used the excuse that tighter environmental standards to reduce greenhouse emissions could hurt the economy, but he doesn't mention the economic harm done by war. Contrary to common assumptions, war is not a good stimulus for the economy. After a few years it starts to have a negative impact on job creation. In this article Dean Baker takes a look at the economic consequences of this debacle in Iraq. The article is at www.commondreams.org;
In order to better inform the debate, the Center for Economic and Policy Research commissioned the econometric forecasting firm Global Insight to simulate the impact of a sustained increase in military spending equal to one percentage point of GDP, or $140 billion annually at present (approximately the same increase that has taken place since 2001). Global Insight was selected because it has a highly respected econometric model and is one of the oldest econometric forecasting firms in the country (it was formed from the merger of WEFA and DRI).
The model showed that after an initial stimulus, the impact of higher military spending turns negative around the sixth year. By the tenth year, the economy is projected to have 464,000 fewer payroll jobs in the high-spending scenario. If the higher spending persists for 20 years, the simulation shows job loss reaching 670,000. The job loss is concentrated in construction and manufacturing, with the construction sector projected to lose 144,000 in the tenth year and the manufacturing sector 95,000. By the twentieth year, the number of construction jobs is projected to be 211,000 lower in the high military spending scenario.
The projections also show a considerably larger trade deficit, which would add roughly $1.8 trillion (in 2007 dollars) to the foreign debt in 20 years (approximately nine percent of GDP). In the twentieth year, car sales are projected to be 730,000 lower in the high military spending scenario, while housing starts and sales are projected to be down by 39,000 and 287,000, respectively.
MCCARTHYISM THEN AND NOW
One of the most shameful periods in American history was during the 1950's when Senator Joseph McCarthy launched an anti-Communist hysteria that destroyed lives and careers. People who had done absolutely wrong suddenly found themselves blacklisted and unable to get work. The techniques of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee were to get people to name their friends and associates as "Communist sympathizers." It was a kind of smear pyramid scheme. In our time we've seen McCarthyism revived by people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. We heard George W. Bush claim that "you're with us or against us," as though any dissent from his policies was treason. This article by Walter C. Uhler contrasts the 1950's and now with a look at a voice of reason, the late George Kennan. The article is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Kennan excoriated McCarthyism's "alarmed and exercized anti-communism," as "an anti-communism of a quite special variety, bearing an air of excited discovery and proprietorship, as though no one had ever known before that there was a communist danger, as though no one had ever thought about it and taken its measure, as though it had all begun about the year 1945 and these people were the first to learn of it."
President Bush behaved the same way, as if "alarmed and exercised" anti-terrorism rhetoric would enable him to hide his failures to prevent 9/11, notwithstanding numerous warnings about impending terrorist attacks. Attempting to gain proprietorship, Bush's numerous asinine assertions about the terrorists demonstrated that he didn't have a clue.
First, he ignorantly claimed: "They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." Then he foolishly promised to "rout out terror wherever it may exist." [Woodward, p.73] More ominously, he would "make no distinction between those who planned these acts and those who harbor them." [p. 30] Finally, he also promised to "rid the world of evil." [p. 67]
Such words befit an overeager, ignorant, petulant child, not a mature statesman. Yet, can any less be said of all the Americans, who found such nonsense persuasive? No wonder citizens throughout the rest of the world consider the United States to be the greatest menace to world peace.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
BUSH: WAR GOOD, ENVIRONMENT BAD
George W. Bush has used the excuse that tighter environmental standards to reduce greenhouse emissions could hurt the economy, but he doesn't mention the economic harm done by war. Contrary to common assumptions, war is not a good stimulus for the economy. After a few years it starts to have a negative impact on job creation. In this article Dean Baker takes a look at the economic consequences of this debacle in Iraq. The article is at www.commondreams.org;
In order to better inform the debate, the Center for Economic and Policy Research commissioned the econometric forecasting firm Global Insight to simulate the impact of a sustained increase in military spending equal to one percentage point of GDP, or $140 billion annually at present (approximately the same increase that has taken place since 2001). Global Insight was selected because it has a highly respected econometric model and is one of the oldest econometric forecasting firms in the country (it was formed from the merger of WEFA and DRI).
The model showed that after an initial stimulus, the impact of higher military spending turns negative around the sixth year. By the tenth year, the economy is projected to have 464,000 fewer payroll jobs in the high-spending scenario. If the higher spending persists for 20 years, the simulation shows job loss reaching 670,000. The job loss is concentrated in construction and manufacturing, with the construction sector projected to lose 144,000 in the tenth year and the manufacturing sector 95,000. By the twentieth year, the number of construction jobs is projected to be 211,000 lower in the high military spending scenario.
The projections also show a considerably larger trade deficit, which would add roughly $1.8 trillion (in 2007 dollars) to the foreign debt in 20 years (approximately nine percent of GDP). In the twentieth year, car sales are projected to be 730,000 lower in the high military spending scenario, while housing starts and sales are projected to be down by 39,000 and 287,000, respectively.
MCCARTHYISM THEN AND NOW
One of the most shameful periods in American history was during the 1950's when Senator Joseph McCarthy launched an anti-Communist hysteria that destroyed lives and careers. People who had done absolutely wrong suddenly found themselves blacklisted and unable to get work. The techniques of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee were to get people to name their friends and associates as "Communist sympathizers." It was a kind of smear pyramid scheme. In our time we've seen McCarthyism revived by people like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. We heard George W. Bush claim that "you're with us or against us," as though any dissent from his policies was treason. This article by Walter C. Uhler contrasts the 1950's and now with a look at a voice of reason, the late George Kennan. The article is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
Kennan excoriated McCarthyism's "alarmed and exercized anti-communism," as "an anti-communism of a quite special variety, bearing an air of excited discovery and proprietorship, as though no one had ever known before that there was a communist danger, as though no one had ever thought about it and taken its measure, as though it had all begun about the year 1945 and these people were the first to learn of it."
President Bush behaved the same way, as if "alarmed and exercised" anti-terrorism rhetoric would enable him to hide his failures to prevent 9/11, notwithstanding numerous warnings about impending terrorist attacks. Attempting to gain proprietorship, Bush's numerous asinine assertions about the terrorists demonstrated that he didn't have a clue.
First, he ignorantly claimed: "They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." Then he foolishly promised to "rout out terror wherever it may exist." [Woodward, p.73] More ominously, he would "make no distinction between those who planned these acts and those who harbor them." [p. 30] Finally, he also promised to "rid the world of evil." [p. 67]
Such words befit an overeager, ignorant, petulant child, not a mature statesman. Yet, can any less be said of all the Americans, who found such nonsense persuasive? No wonder citizens throughout the rest of the world consider the United States to be the greatest menace to world peace.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
April 07, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MANAGING THE WAR
George W. Bush has claimed that Congressional goals of withdrawing troops from Iraq are "micromanaging" the war. Bush and his cohorts like to parade around with the "commander in chief" title, as though that gives Bush carte blanche to do anything and everything he wants. Even if this war were justified, which it clearly is not, Bush and his gang messed it up from the start. They lied to get justification for starting the war. They didn't send enough troops. They had no strategy for occupying, or leaving, Iraq. The Constitution, contrary to Bush's assertions, makes Congress a major presence in matters of war. This column by Rosa Brooks is at www.latimes.com:
Contrary to the administration's claim, the Constitution (which makes a good read for detail-oriented citizens) in no way prohibits congressional restrictions on the use of the military. On the contrary. Having had unpleasant experiences with monarchical government, the framers were determined to prevent precisely the sort of situation we now have, in which an unaccountable executive endangers the nation through a foolish and self-destructive war.
Thus, while the president's war-related powers are dealt with in a single clause ("the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy"), the Constitution outlines expansive congressional wartime powers, a view that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Congress is expressly empowered to declare war (and, implicitly, to declare an end to a particular war). Congress also has the power to "raise and support Armies" (with the proviso that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years," which was intended to ensure precisely the accountability the administration seeks to evade). Congress also is given the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." With its Iraq bills, Congress isn't micromanaging; it's just fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.
It's about time, too.
ONE MAN, ONE VOTE?
Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that all men are created equal. In the United States each vote is supposed to be equal, but the vast inequality in wealth has changed that dynamic. As this author points out, the richest people in the United States make 440 times the income of the average person. The rich are heavy contributors to political campaigns. It's like saying that a rich person gets 440 votes to every one from you and I. This commentary by Nicholas von Hoffman is at www.thenation.com:
You cannot successfully make public policy on the basis of fairness. The criterion must be justice, but let's leave how we decide what is just for another time and cut to one, very important form of justice: the equal distribution of power and our conviction that elections should be conducted on a one-man-one-vote basis.
You will not find many people who will defend the idea that a few people should be accorded 440 votes and the rest of the electorate only one vote each. That is an idea to be found in the original, unamended version of the Constitution in which some people (the black ones) were considered to be worth only 60 percent of a white man's vote.
Naturally the slaves did not get to cast their depreciated 60 percent vote. Their masters did. Under the modern system we are allowed to cast our own vote, which is worth about 1/440th of a rich person's vote, since money is political power in America.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
MANAGING THE WAR
George W. Bush has claimed that Congressional goals of withdrawing troops from Iraq are "micromanaging" the war. Bush and his cohorts like to parade around with the "commander in chief" title, as though that gives Bush carte blanche to do anything and everything he wants. Even if this war were justified, which it clearly is not, Bush and his gang messed it up from the start. They lied to get justification for starting the war. They didn't send enough troops. They had no strategy for occupying, or leaving, Iraq. The Constitution, contrary to Bush's assertions, makes Congress a major presence in matters of war. This column by Rosa Brooks is at www.latimes.com:
Contrary to the administration's claim, the Constitution (which makes a good read for detail-oriented citizens) in no way prohibits congressional restrictions on the use of the military. On the contrary. Having had unpleasant experiences with monarchical government, the framers were determined to prevent precisely the sort of situation we now have, in which an unaccountable executive endangers the nation through a foolish and self-destructive war.
Thus, while the president's war-related powers are dealt with in a single clause ("the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy"), the Constitution outlines expansive congressional wartime powers, a view that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Congress is expressly empowered to declare war (and, implicitly, to declare an end to a particular war). Congress also has the power to "raise and support Armies" (with the proviso that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years," which was intended to ensure precisely the accountability the administration seeks to evade). Congress also is given the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." With its Iraq bills, Congress isn't micromanaging; it's just fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.
It's about time, too.
ONE MAN, ONE VOTE?
Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that all men are created equal. In the United States each vote is supposed to be equal, but the vast inequality in wealth has changed that dynamic. As this author points out, the richest people in the United States make 440 times the income of the average person. The rich are heavy contributors to political campaigns. It's like saying that a rich person gets 440 votes to every one from you and I. This commentary by Nicholas von Hoffman is at www.thenation.com:
You cannot successfully make public policy on the basis of fairness. The criterion must be justice, but let's leave how we decide what is just for another time and cut to one, very important form of justice: the equal distribution of power and our conviction that elections should be conducted on a one-man-one-vote basis.
You will not find many people who will defend the idea that a few people should be accorded 440 votes and the rest of the electorate only one vote each. That is an idea to be found in the original, unamended version of the Constitution in which some people (the black ones) were considered to be worth only 60 percent of a white man's vote.
Naturally the slaves did not get to cast their depreciated 60 percent vote. Their masters did. Under the modern system we are allowed to cast our own vote, which is worth about 1/440th of a rich person's vote, since money is political power in America.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
February 22, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TOO MANY MORONS
The Central Valley can be a difficult place to live if you have an IQ above room temperature. Today is reactionary day in the letters page of The Fresno Bee. One idiot says he'll forgive the Dixie Chicks when the Vietnam veterans forgive Jane Fonda. One really over-the-top jerk refers to the "socialist" press and calls the Democrats who voted for a non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives cut and run defeatists. We get the usual blather about this giving aid and comfort to our enemies. The fact is our enemies love the United States military being bogged down in Iraq. They couldn't have gotten a bigger gift from George W. Bush than this so-called troop surge that bogs us down even more. I wonder how Mr. Foaming at the Mouth is reacting to the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq. Are the British "cut and run defeatists" too?
WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP
The neocon philosophy that gained mainstream power with Ronald Reagan is like corrosive acid on the United States. Neocon "morality" believes in the forcible creation of "democracy. " It's a "democracy" that is compliant to the wishes of the United States political and corporate elites. Torture against Americans is an outrage, but torture of other people is perfectly legitimate. Neocons and their followers can talk casually of using nuclear weapons to kill millions of people. Neocons will lie and subvert science to fight efforts against global warming. Neocons will transfer most of the country's wealth to the few at the top. Neocons will ignore an American city like New Orleans and leave it to drown. Neocons will "protect" our freedom by destroying our civil liberties. This is a good commentary by Robert Parry about the war in Iraq that is already lost. The article is at www.truthout.org:
Despite the sacrifices in lives, treasure and liberties, the painful reality is that the United States is losing the "war on terror" - in large part because too many people in the Middle East and across the globe view George W. Bush as a bully and a hypocrite.
Bush has become the ugly face of America, mouthing pretty words about freedom and democracy while threatening other nations and bludgeoning those who get in his way. Perhaps even worse, Bush has shown himself to be an incompetent commander, especially for a conflict as complicated and nuanced as this one.
Indeed, it is hard to envision how the United States can win the crucial battles for the hearts and minds of key populations if Bush remains President. Arguably, Bush has become a "clear and present danger" to the interests of the American people - yet he still has almost two years left in his term.
This predicament - the desperate need for new U.S. leadership and the difficult fact of being stuck with Bush - was underscored by the Feb. 19 lead article in the New York Times describing the revival of al-Qaeda as a worldwide terror network operating out of new bases in remote sections of Pakistan.
"American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan," the Times reported.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TOO MANY MORONS
The Central Valley can be a difficult place to live if you have an IQ above room temperature. Today is reactionary day in the letters page of The Fresno Bee. One idiot says he'll forgive the Dixie Chicks when the Vietnam veterans forgive Jane Fonda. One really over-the-top jerk refers to the "socialist" press and calls the Democrats who voted for a non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives cut and run defeatists. We get the usual blather about this giving aid and comfort to our enemies. The fact is our enemies love the United States military being bogged down in Iraq. They couldn't have gotten a bigger gift from George W. Bush than this so-called troop surge that bogs us down even more. I wonder how Mr. Foaming at the Mouth is reacting to the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq. Are the British "cut and run defeatists" too?
WE NEED NEW LEADERSHIP
The neocon philosophy that gained mainstream power with Ronald Reagan is like corrosive acid on the United States. Neocon "morality" believes in the forcible creation of "democracy. " It's a "democracy" that is compliant to the wishes of the United States political and corporate elites. Torture against Americans is an outrage, but torture of other people is perfectly legitimate. Neocons and their followers can talk casually of using nuclear weapons to kill millions of people. Neocons will lie and subvert science to fight efforts against global warming. Neocons will transfer most of the country's wealth to the few at the top. Neocons will ignore an American city like New Orleans and leave it to drown. Neocons will "protect" our freedom by destroying our civil liberties. This is a good commentary by Robert Parry about the war in Iraq that is already lost. The article is at www.truthout.org:
Despite the sacrifices in lives, treasure and liberties, the painful reality is that the United States is losing the "war on terror" - in large part because too many people in the Middle East and across the globe view George W. Bush as a bully and a hypocrite.
Bush has become the ugly face of America, mouthing pretty words about freedom and democracy while threatening other nations and bludgeoning those who get in his way. Perhaps even worse, Bush has shown himself to be an incompetent commander, especially for a conflict as complicated and nuanced as this one.
Indeed, it is hard to envision how the United States can win the crucial battles for the hearts and minds of key populations if Bush remains President. Arguably, Bush has become a "clear and present danger" to the interests of the American people - yet he still has almost two years left in his term.
This predicament - the desperate need for new U.S. leadership and the difficult fact of being stuck with Bush - was underscored by the Feb. 19 lead article in the New York Times describing the revival of al-Qaeda as a worldwide terror network operating out of new bases in remote sections of Pakistan.
"American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan," the Times reported.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
February 17, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE CONVENIENCE SOCIETY
All of us hate inconvenience. I don't like standing in lines or waiting in traffic jams. I don't like being put on hold forever. But on issues like war and peace, on preserving our democracy, we can't let inconvenience keep us from fighting for what is right. That's the point of this article by Linda Milazzo is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
In this world, more specifically in this nation, where convenience is highly prized, inconvenience is the enemy. It's a sign of failure. The cornerstone of this capitalist society is the acquisition of enough wealth and power to hand all inconvenience over to someone else. The gardener. The housekeeper. The nanny. Perhaps the driver. Maybe the chef.
After decades of creature comforts, heated/air-conditioned homes, luxury cars, comfy couches, big screen TVs, filled to capacity refrigerators, and home delivered food.
After lifetimes of basic freedoms, ordained law and order, secured and protected futures, abundant entertainment, free primary and secondary education, vacation resorts and retirement oases.
After generations of overindulged children whose only inconvenience was homework and cleaning their room, Americans have become passive observers. Unmotivated, inconsequential citizens suffering severely for not being involved. Endless war, world disdain, an ever growing military industrial complex, and increasingly diminished personal rights are just a semblance of the price they have paid.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
THE CONVENIENCE SOCIETY
All of us hate inconvenience. I don't like standing in lines or waiting in traffic jams. I don't like being put on hold forever. But on issues like war and peace, on preserving our democracy, we can't let inconvenience keep us from fighting for what is right. That's the point of this article by Linda Milazzo is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
In this world, more specifically in this nation, where convenience is highly prized, inconvenience is the enemy. It's a sign of failure. The cornerstone of this capitalist society is the acquisition of enough wealth and power to hand all inconvenience over to someone else. The gardener. The housekeeper. The nanny. Perhaps the driver. Maybe the chef.
After decades of creature comforts, heated/air-conditioned homes, luxury cars, comfy couches, big screen TVs, filled to capacity refrigerators, and home delivered food.
After lifetimes of basic freedoms, ordained law and order, secured and protected futures, abundant entertainment, free primary and secondary education, vacation resorts and retirement oases.
After generations of overindulged children whose only inconvenience was homework and cleaning their room, Americans have become passive observers. Unmotivated, inconsequential citizens suffering severely for not being involved. Endless war, world disdain, an ever growing military industrial complex, and increasingly diminished personal rights are just a semblance of the price they have paid.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
January 11, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WAR ON TERROR IS A TROJAN HORSE
As this writer points out, once upon a time we had a real cause for fear. We had nuclear weapons pointed at our cities that could literally vaporize us and end civilization. But during the Cold War we never had the assault on civil liberties we've seen since George W. Bush got into the White House. We had McCarthy in the 1950's, and McCarthy did a lot of damage, but Bush makes Joseph McCarthy look tame. The attacks on 9/11 gave Bush and his neocons the excuse they needed to push their onerous agenda of destroying the middle class, devoting our resources to the military and military expansionism, and enriching war profiteers. This commentary by A. Alexander is at www.progressivedailybeacon.com:
Before moving forward in this discussion, we all need to understand one very important reality: The so-called War on Terror is nothing more than an excuse for corporate-sponsored fascism, bolstered by theocracy-dreaming foot soldiers, to advance its cause. Don't think any such thing exists or is possible? Then you must not be aware that conservative businessmen, fearful of 'socialisms influence', were the people that supported Hitler's rise to power.
During the cold war there were literally hundreds -- if not thousands -- of nuclear warheads pointed at America's cities. These weren't the useless "dirty bomb" variety that Bush and his people want you to be afraid of today, and that scientists say are generally pretty harmless. For all the fear-mongering surrounding dirty bombs, the fact is that such a weapon can't hurt people unless they stand stock-still in the blast area...for an entire year. That's no joke...that is, according to physicists, the truth about dirty bombs. On the other hand, during the cold war, the danger came from Soviet-built nuclear warheads that made Hiroshima and Nagasaki-type nukes look like firecrackers. These warheads were the serious "bend over and kiss your caboose goodbye," variety of nukes. No standing around required - instant vaporization.
REPUBLICANS: LEARN YOUR CLICHES
There's a great scene in the movie Bull Durham where Crash Davis tells a rookie phenom under his tutelage that he needs to "learn his cliches." The same could be said of Republican writers to The Fresno Bee. We get the same cliches regurgitated over and over. Today's missive was from a conservative aggrieved over a column by Maureen Dowd. Our writer actually thinks Maureen is a liberal. It's true she has gotten off some good bon mots against the Bush-Cheney cabal, but she was forever attacking Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore. How short the memories are!
Our letter writer like to characterize us as baby killers, marriage destroyers (for favoring gay rights), and so on. All are vast distortions of the truth, but conservatives are challenged when it comes to subtleties.
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
WAR ON TERROR IS A TROJAN HORSE
As this writer points out, once upon a time we had a real cause for fear. We had nuclear weapons pointed at our cities that could literally vaporize us and end civilization. But during the Cold War we never had the assault on civil liberties we've seen since George W. Bush got into the White House. We had McCarthy in the 1950's, and McCarthy did a lot of damage, but Bush makes Joseph McCarthy look tame. The attacks on 9/11 gave Bush and his neocons the excuse they needed to push their onerous agenda of destroying the middle class, devoting our resources to the military and military expansionism, and enriching war profiteers. This commentary by A. Alexander is at www.progressivedailybeacon.com:
Before moving forward in this discussion, we all need to understand one very important reality: The so-called War on Terror is nothing more than an excuse for corporate-sponsored fascism, bolstered by theocracy-dreaming foot soldiers, to advance its cause. Don't think any such thing exists or is possible? Then you must not be aware that conservative businessmen, fearful of 'socialisms influence', were the people that supported Hitler's rise to power.
During the cold war there were literally hundreds -- if not thousands -- of nuclear warheads pointed at America's cities. These weren't the useless "dirty bomb" variety that Bush and his people want you to be afraid of today, and that scientists say are generally pretty harmless. For all the fear-mongering surrounding dirty bombs, the fact is that such a weapon can't hurt people unless they stand stock-still in the blast area...for an entire year. That's no joke...that is, according to physicists, the truth about dirty bombs. On the other hand, during the cold war, the danger came from Soviet-built nuclear warheads that made Hiroshima and Nagasaki-type nukes look like firecrackers. These warheads were the serious "bend over and kiss your caboose goodbye," variety of nukes. No standing around required - instant vaporization.
REPUBLICANS: LEARN YOUR CLICHES
There's a great scene in the movie Bull Durham where Crash Davis tells a rookie phenom under his tutelage that he needs to "learn his cliches." The same could be said of Republican writers to The Fresno Bee. We get the same cliches regurgitated over and over. Today's missive was from a conservative aggrieved over a column by Maureen Dowd. Our writer actually thinks Maureen is a liberal. It's true she has gotten off some good bon mots against the Bush-Cheney cabal, but she was forever attacking Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore. How short the memories are!
Our letter writer like to characterize us as baby killers, marriage destroyers (for favoring gay rights), and so on. All are vast distortions of the truth, but conservatives are challenged when it comes to subtleties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)