Right On!

With the tossing of some explosive through the window of a recruiting station on 44th Street in NYC, the claim that there have been no more terrorist attacks under G.W. comes to an end.

It will be fun to hear the paranoiacs say this was merely an act of vandalism and not an act of terror. [Makes you wonder how they consider Timothy McVeigh]  Imagine this explosion occurring while an Anti-neocon was the President.   Certainly they would shout that such an explosion is the fault of a White House that doesn't take terrorism seriously, and the lazy liberal policies of the legislature created the environment that allows terrorism to blossom.

Looks like we can correctly say that Wiretaps didn't prevent this attack, that Guantanamo detentions were ineffective against this assault, and our presence in Iraq was inconsequential to this event.

Whether the opposition to the G.W. Presidency tries to claim this as an act of terror, or a small minor act is unknown.  Either way it will help force everyone to ask "When is a crime to be considered an act of terror?"

I do know that allowing the White House to define it for the nation is dangerous.

I came out of the Liberal college education system that is American.  I remained a strong Liberal, (in accordance with Churchill's statement that "If you are young and not a liberal there is something wrong with your heart...") until I read Wm. F. Buckley's book Have You Ever Seen a Dream Walking?

It was the primary influence on the change in direction of my thinking.

Buckley was a distant mentor of mine.  I looked forward to his Firing Line television show in the 1980s and it was on his program that I first considered reversing my belief that drugs should always remain illegal.  Buckley argued that drugs should not be illegal:  "But we do know this, and I approach the nexus of my inquiry, which is that more people die every year as a result of the war against [drugs] than die from what we call, generically, overdosing....I leave it at this, that it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana."

Buckley also reasoned well (as if I had to use that adverb to describe his action!) that we should not have a death penalty; not on moral/philosophical grounds, but rather because it costs the state more to kill someone than it does to imprison them for life. 

Buckley also didn't think G.W. was a conservative.  Buckley makes the distinction of someone who "is conservative" and someone who "is a conservative."   I'll leave it to you to decipher from this interview. 

Conservatives in America were opposed to U.S. participation in WWII.  Liberals encouraged our "spreading of democracy" in both World Wars.  Today's neo-cons are yesterday's Liberals. 

Buckley said we have failed in Iraq (giving credence to the notion that G.W. will top Buchanan as the worse president ever) and that G.W. has big problems because the solutions that would fix things require a refutation of his policy assumptions.  In other words, face saving pride won't allow G.W. to admit he's wrong, and in service to his personal pride system, hundreds, probably thousands more, will die. 

American conservatives need clear thinkers like Mr. Buckley.  He will be missed, but to those who call themselves "conservative" and haven't read his work, those who won't stop, look, and listen, his passing will hardly be noticed.

Rest in Peace! 

One of the risks if McCain wins the presidency, will be his vice-president.  Rarely are Vice Presidents a determining factor in an election.  However, this season we could possibly elect the oldest president on record, one with a previous cancer diagnosis, or a youthful black candidate (reminiscent of JFK) which elevates the importance of the VP candidate.   Death by nature, or death by assassination leads one to conclude that the VP is only one life's breath away from the Presidency.

God willing, the VP candidate remains unimportant!

What if Hillary wins the Presidency and names her husband as her running mate ?  Technically she could resign and turn the White House back over to Bill. 

The risks of McCain are several.  If he wins we inherit the watered down versions of the catastrophically un-American policies of G.W.  We get G.W. Lite.  2/3 of Americans now believe the Iraq war was a terrible policy decision, and that McCain thinks otherwise almost guarantees he returns as a Senator from Arizona in November.   He cannot convince Americans he is the "Agent of Change".

The good thing about a McCain Presidency is his victory would shove the twisted ideologues in the GOP to the rear where they belong.  Their tyrannical hold over a once decent Party will be greatly minimized, and the nation improved as a result.

The risk of a McCain loss would be these ideologues would proclaim that the GOP lost because they chose a candidate who turned away from their "core values."  A resurgent wave of enthusiasm for their disastrous misunderstandings of America's role in the world would return.

Neo-Cons are not Conservatives, and have shanghaied the label "Conservative" the way homosexuals have shanghaied the term "gay".  They are self-serving activists who deceive themselves in thinking they are doing the moral, just work of the Lord.

Aristotle told the world that evil is ONLY committed by people who think they are doing right.

It's time for neo-cons to confess their errors and change their ways.

I like it when politicians are decisive, ones who call a spade a spade, say definitively that "This is wrong, and That is right."  Left-right, stop-go, black-white, someone who can take complex issues and filter it finally into a yes-no plan of action, as opposed to someone who wants to measure every nuance of options and perpetually postpone a decision.  Being "manly" isn't enough though.  Politicians have to be right in their positions, fortitude on a right policy is admirable, "staying the course" of foolishness is disgusting.

Little did I know that a form of "manly" politics would come from Nancy Pelosi who rightly refused to allow the FISA bill to come for a vote.  [Propagandists spun the law as the Protect America Act]

If Ben Franklin or G.W. the First (George Washington) would suspect that the government they fought to form would someday want to spy on its own taxpayers and additionally to remove the mechanism for seeking redress from such invasion, then they would have quit the fight and declared they fought only to see America become like Britain. 

Standing up and saying no to immorality is the hallmark of a leader.  Nancy Pelosi took that stand against the Bush administration (too ate up with their own pride to even consider they might be violating American values) by tactfully allowing the FISA law to die.

The Right Wing Whacko's think that FISA is the ONLY way to intercept information, and they think that its demise will expose America to threats.  They think there is only one way to fight terrorists and are willing to trade American values for that opportunity. 

The Soldiers of 1776 or 1863 didn't die to keep America free from threats; they died to keep America free.  Any politician who resists the temptation to trade our values for safety can be called "American" in the purest sense.  G.W. and his supporters sold out, like Neville Chamberlain, and traded our values for a misplaced hope for a life free from threats.

The ability to adhere to core values when bad times come is the hallmark of strong character.  G.W. and his administration are the least deserving of their office in my lifetime, and have failed that test of character miserably.

Osama B.L.  lit a fire.  It still rages and it's fueled by GOP right wingers who think it possible to use combat troops to defeat a method instead of defeating an enemy.

Armies move and shoot.  Their aim is a physical entity, another army, or a geographical location.  Like the wind you cannot touch a terrorism, or see it, you can only see its results.  From day one a war against terrorism, a physical assault on a concept was doomed to be never ending, and therefore a failure.  In this case an absence of final success is failure.  Bush's decision was flawed the second he spoke it, and in a rush to "feel safe" many Americans perverted their fear into a rationalization that starting a war [that everyone now knows was unnecessary] was blessed by God.

Bin Laden struck the match, and RWW (right wing whacko's) made the fire perpetual.

How do you ask?

Bin Laden, not an idiot (crazy yes, but not an idiot) knows that he can do the greatest damage to America, not by killing Americans, but by killing its economy.  G.W. (I sometimes think the W stands for Witless) is unwittingly bin Laden's hand maiden.

Compare the 6 year economy of America after 9/11 to the 6 years prior to 9/11.  Which one was stronger?

Record deficits, record foreign ownership of U.S. bonds [and I sometimes think that people don't recognize that bond owners are analogous to banks owning your mortgage.  Stop making payments and the bank takes your house.   The owners of our bonds have the right to own America when we default on payments]  Rapid freefall of the U.S. dollar, highest oil prices ever, Billions draining our resources to fund a war that doesn't help America, and the Nasdaq is back to where it was in October 2006.

Stores in Manhattan are now posting signs that they will only trade in Euros.  India tourist attractions are no longer accepting dollars as a valid currency.  Ten percent of all real estate transactions in Manhattan in the 4th quarter were transacted in Euros. 

On 9/12/01 the U.S. dollar could buy 91.5 Euro cents.  Yesterday $1.00 could only buy 68 Euro cents. 

The dollar is crashing (50%), our deficit and debts is soaring, our reputation of being a morally good nation is becoming widely accepted as imperialistically evil, and the result is the beginning of a global loss of faith in the dollar.

This is bad for the American economy.  Bin Laden outsmarted G.W. and Americans by getting us to want to fund a wasteful action.  The longer he can draw out our commitment to using infantry to fight what is best fought with intelligence and police, the closer to victory he comes. 

Kerry was right when he said this is primarily an FBI/CIA/Law Enforcement mission.   I know.   Some of you think it impossible for him to be right about anything, but that's silly.  Even wrong clocks are right twice a day. 

The Dollar is falling, global perception that the dollar is the strongest currency is fading, and we only have ourselves to blame, albeit G.W. and his followers have the greatest share of the blame, but the tragedy is they will make us all suffer the consequence.

With Iraq, It's time to crap or get off the pot.  It's evil and only Bin Laden and Satan are enjoying the wasteful carnage.