Government Holidays

I was thinking, just a short while ago, whether today was considered a holiday and if the mail would run or not.  I remember when I was very young and first started working, that most companies would have considered today, Monday, July 5, 2010, a holiday.  It used to be that if a holiday fell on a Sunday, then Monday was your holiday.  Likewise, if a holiday fell on a Saturday, then the Friday before was your holiday.  But, in the business community at least, getting the Friday before a holiday off slowly became a thing of the past.  I don't think there are many businesses today that give the Monday after a holiday off, either.  I regret that.

I regret it because it signifies a passing in the evolution of the life of our society.  It signifies another ending to practices that recognize the value of a worker, of another human being.  I remember Christmas vacations, Easter holidays, including Good Friday, and Lincoln's Birthday.  (I can't remember if there was a holiday for Thomas Jefferson or not, but I think there should be.)  Holidays have more impact if nothing's open and no one goes to work.  Of course, that's changed, too.

It's been so long now that it's hard to remember when things started to change.  I remember these things from the Kennedy years and the Johnson years, certainly.  Nixon  started changing things by replacing Lincoln, Washington, and any other President's holiday birthday with the generic "President's Day", as well as instituting the 3-day weekend by simply replacing weekday holidays, which were thought to be too disruptive by big business owners, with a Monday.  Many Americans liked the idea of having a full three days off work, but others, like myself, liked the idea of having a day off during the work week, to break it up every now and then.

People who owned the bigger businesses, like factories, department stores, etc., didn't like their workforce off in the middle of the week because it disrupted productivity and sales.  And so, year by year, big business bargained with the workforce.  If the wanted something, they had to give up something.  I guess their reasoning was that in order to insure profit growth, if they had to pay more for one thing, then they were going to have to cut back on something else.  If the workers wanted a raise, then they were going to have to give up something - like a holiday.  

Aided and abetted by the Congress, particularly during the 80s, 90s, and our present decade, big business has slowly stopped granting those little extras that have been so much a part of our country's tradition.  Hardly anyone works 9-5 anymore.  Overtime and earlytime is not only encouraged, but expected by most firms.  As companies have been granted more and more leeway by the Congress and the courts, they have in turn demanded more from their employees.  It is no longer the gratuitousness of an employer toward his/her employee - it is more of an attitude that the employee is lucky the employer granted the position; therefore the employer is owed.  Basically, it's the attitude of servitude.  Back to the days of Lords and Serfs.

As a human being, I have to say that this attitude rather offends me.  It is so medieval, so arrogant, so...sociopathic, that it is repugnant.  As a society, I used to think we had evolved further than this.  

Allowing people who own huge corporations, particularly multinational corporations, to dictate how they will run their business and treat their employees, regardless of the harm it does to the environment, society, and their employees, is unconscionable and weak.

Yet, that's basically what our Congress, our Presidents, and even our Supreme Court, have done.  Woe to us! when businesses are given the same, ascribed rights of "personhood."  Because, what that basically says is that the person or persons who own these huge businesses that are now considered "people" - at least, for the purpose of political contributions - now basically own...well, people.  Yet, it is illegal in our country for one person to "own" or claim to own, another person.  (They called it slavery, remember?)  However, I've yet to hear a legal argument on this point.  Perhaps they think it's useless - after all, it would most likely go to the Supreme Court.....


It's sad, and downright scary, that the seemingly last bastion of non-partisanship (or, at least we hoped they were non-partisan), the Supreme Court, has at last succumbed to the pressures of party ideology.   If they were meant to be the level-headed, fair-minded, all-knowing parents of an immature Congress, they have now failed in that role.  Now we come to the beginning of what millions of people have called totalitarianism - the rule of one political party and total control over the government, and therefore, the citizenry.  


I don't know about you, but that just scares the heebeejeebies right out of me.  The Tea Party people are all fighting for the wrong thing; it's like the blind leading the blind.  And meanwhile, the rich get richer and the rest of the country goes to hell in a handbasket.  But, I digress and that's another story for another day.


We were talking about holidays, and how I wanted to know if the mail was going to run today.  Well, being the red-blooded American gal that I am, I turned on the computer and googled it.  Sure enough, up came the U.S. Federal Government website, right to the page where all its federal holidays are listed.  It's a federal holiday today, which means not only does the mail not run, but all other government offices are closed, as well.  I guess that means that my recycling and garbage will also be picked up a day late this week.


But, are the banks open? Not my credit union, anyway.  I think from the fireworks still going off around me, that there must be people home from work, as well.  Then again, there's quite a few unemployed people in my area, so maybe they'd be home, anyway.  And of course, school's out.  Still, there are cars in driveways that are usually not there at this time of day, so maybe some businesses, or even most, have decreed today a holiday, in keeping with tradition.


And speaking of tradition, here's what puzzles me:  There are people in Congress that spout patriotism, tradition, and values virtually every time they get up to speak.  You might know some of the politicians I'm talking about, if you follow politics.  But here's my question:  Why are these people lobbying for the wealthy big business owners, instead of the traditions and values that they claim to honor?  And why aren't they doing more to give us back Easter vacation?  Christmas vacation?  How about Christmas carols in the public schools?  Or public prayer in the schools?  I'm a fairly observant person, and I observe mostly talk and far too little action in any area that gives back our traditions and values, ESPECIALLY when it comes to sacrifices by the wealthy big business owners.


I notice that the U.S. Government website no longer grants a holiday for Good Friday or Easter.  When I was young, all the schools and all the businesses, including government offices, closed on noon on Good Friday.  Monday was also a holiday, so for us kids, it was "Easter vacation."  3 and a half days off school, yay!  We'd walk past the Cathedral and people would be pouring in for noon mass.  I'm not Catholic, but I liked to see the public respect and display of a people recognizing a higher power.  One no longer sees that today, because the respect and tradition are both gone.  I think that's quite sad,too.


If these so-called patriotic, traditional/conservative politicians want to restore respect and values in our society, then why don't they start by giving us back those social mores?  Decree Good Friday and Easter Monday holidays once again.  Restore each individual President's holidays, and let the people take off work on the day it falls, rather than a generic Monday.  

We, as a country and a society, start losing our traditions and values when we allow others to take them away from us.  When we don't stand up and speak out, when we don't fight for what we believe in, the bullies will come and take it away.  It's as simple as that.  Plus, most of the bullies today have money...and money talks.  And the politicians are listening.  Those same politicians that are telling us how much they want a return to traditional "morals and values" are telling us one thing to our face and screwing us behind our backs.  And most of us are too stupid, I guess, to realize it.  I personally think it's time for some good old-fashioned "put up or shut up".  Instead of feeding us focus-group approved lines, DO SOMETHING.  Stop squawking and write bills that mean something.  Without the pork, please.

Palin's Response

Well, yesterday I said I wanted to hear from Sarah Palin, and regrettably, I got my wish.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594753,00.html

While I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly, I think even he was having a hard time keeping up - or more specifically, trying to understand - Ms. Palin.

Part of the problem I have with her is that she's freaking illiterate.  She has trouble stringing words together to make a coherent, let alone grammatically correct, sentence.  So, trying to translate what she says into intelligible English is the first thing I have to do.  And that's just tiresome.  It's also pathetic when I have to do this for someone who was once a governor.  (Although, after listening to a recent speech from the governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, I'm now advocating IQ tests as a prerequisite for holding public office.)

I choose to believe that the average American is more like me than her.  At least, I pray I'm right about that.  So, what's her appeal?  I can see what her appeal is to men - T & A.  In a nutshell.  She's not bad to look at.  

But what's her appeal to women?  I don't think John McCain's wife liked her much, but there sure seems to be alot of other women who do.  Sigh.  It's such a discredit and embarrassment to my gender to have to admit that.  I'm really hoping that there aren't that many loopy women out there, but from what I've seen lately, I may be wrong about that, too.

Well, back to the Gulf Oil Leak.  Much to my expectation, Palin STILL defends the oil companies and their right to make money.  Her 'interpretation' of President Obama's speech is, of course, biased and to me, nonsensical.  But, I guess in all fairness, someone who can't string a coherent thought together probably can't understand one, either.

First, Palin accuses Obama of being wrong on his energy policy.  What Obama said was that we need to invest in alternative energy research and become less dependent on fossil fuels.  He also said that we still needed fossil fuels, but nonetheless, was putting a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling.  While he didn't specifically address that perhaps it's time for the American people to conserve their use of energy, he did talk about environmental conservation of resources.

What Sarah Palin says she heard was that Obama ONLY talked about alternative energy resources.  Huh?  I guess she wasn't listening to the same speech I was, or else, she just plain wasn't listening and decided for herself what he said -without actually, well, listening to him.  That's not only deceptive, it's disrespectful and downright dumb.

Maybe Palin figures that most of the people that listen to her won't listen to Obama's speech, either, so she can get away with saying whatever she wants.  Geez, I sure hope not.  I don't want to believe that there would be that many people who just blindly and naively believe anything someone tells them, without checking out the source for themselves.  But, as Forrest Gump would say, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Second, the ditzy broad then talks about how Obama doesn't realize how dependent people are upon energy in this country, and how that's tied to the economy....Huh?  She really doesn't think Obama realizes how deeply addicted to massive amounts of energy the average American is?  Or how many people are employed by the energy industry?  How many air pockets does she have in that brain of hers?

Of course Obama knows all this.  And because he knows all this, he wants to make sure that Americans will have access to all the energy we need for a long time to come.  He knows that we cannot continue to depend on fossil fuels, for many reasons - most of these which either seems to escape Palin, or which she just can't seem to comprehend.  It's scary enough to think that she's just one person that just doesn't "get it" - but to think that she might actually be representative of thousands of people, maybe tens of thousands of people, is pretty horrific.

Because if that's the case, America's in deep doo-doo.

What Obama points out - and what Palin fails to understand - is that fossil fuel is not renewable.  There isn't an endless supply of it, either.  And if we dont' want to become dependent on Middle Eastern oil (which we don't), then we need to look to the future, not just tomorrow. Renewable energy sources make great sense, because they're generally cheaper to produce and there's an endless supply of it.  When energy is cheaper to produce and there is an endless supply, that means our utility costs go DOWN.  WE PAY LESS.  THAT LEAVES US WITH MORE MONEY FOR OTHER THINGS.  

Now, the question I have to ask myself is, "Why would Sarah Palin object to that?"

While I think Sarah Palin is not the brightest bulb in the pack, I don't think that she purposely wants to harm the environment.  I think she'd probably agree that we have an environmental catastrophe on our hands and probably doesn't want to see another one anymore than you or I do.  At least, I want to give her the benefit of the doubt on this.

Palin also shouldn't object to cheaper electricity that's easier to produce.  Or does she? 

Because if it's not the environment, then it has to be the industry, because these are the only two variables here. So, why would Sarah Palin choose the oil industry, over say, a solar energy industry, or a windmill industry?  All these industries would presumably employ workers, have research and development departments, etc.  The latter two would arguably produce greener energy and be kinder to the environment; the former is a multi-billion industry with long-arm lobbyists in Washington, D.C. - and probably anywhere else there are oil wells.  Like Alaska.

I'm just guessing here, but I don't think I'd be too far off if I was to say that Sarah Palin is "in bed" with the oil industry, because the oil industry gave millions of dollars to her political campaign/s.  In fact, it was sort of funny that she should have accused "the government" of being in bed with the oil companies, when she WAS the government in Alaska, where there are LOTS of oil companies!

Like I said, not the brightest bulb in the pack.

Her responses and criticisms made even Bill O'Reilly defend the President!  She showed herself for the idiot she truly is; she is an embarrassment to the Republican Party, I think, and that's why she's attached herself to the "Tea Partiers".  A bunch of radical, right-wing, rogue rednecks.

Which, of course, is why she fits right in.  (I couldn't resist that.)

In my opinion, Sarah Palin is just a flash-in-the-pan that exposes the extent of the American ignorance that plagues our country today.  It's plain for all to see that we, as a society, need to invest more money and effort into our educational system. We need to make sure that American minds are not closed due to lack of interest or critical thinking skills.  At the very  least, we need to make sure people know their basic reading, writing, and arithmetic - not to mention, grammar.  Miscommunication is perhaps one of the biggest problems in our society.  We all need to know how to communicate with others so that misunderstandings don't occur.  And perhaps, most of all, we need to learn how to listen so that we understand what's really being said.

It's very easy to manipulate speech.  It's also easy to play upon people's emotions, especially fear.  Those who manipulate speech and play upon people's emotions also take advantage of the ignorance and naivete that exists.  I think Sarah Palin is one of those people.  

Read the full article. If you're a conservative, it's a source I'm sure you trust.  If you're a progressive, you might be pleasantly surprised at Bill O'Reilly's reaction.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594753,00.html

And that's all I've got to say about that, for now.

The Gulf Oil Leak

Here's what I have to say about the Gulf Oil Fiasco:

First of all, I want to know why BP was allowed to drill without having safeguards in place.  Didn't they have to have a permit?  Who was responsible for making sure that all the safeguards BP claimed to have were actually being used?

Second, I want to know what Dick "Darth" Cheney agreed to in those "secret" talks with the oil industry execs back in 2001-2003.  I've read that Cheney agreed to give the oil companies a "pass" on safety regulations...because they were too expensive and dipped into profits.

Third, I want to know why President Obama hasn't yet declared a national emergency!  I understand that there might be legal implications in doing so, and perhaps Obama is constrained by legalities of agreements made by President Bush with the oil companies, during the previous administration.  If that's the case, I'd like to know and I'm sure most Americans want to know, too.  It's time for Obama to give up the dream of non-partisanship and let the chips - and blame - fall where they may.

Fourth, I want to know why the media - which conservatives call liberal, even though the mainstream stations are now owned by a handful of conservatives/Republicans - hasn't tried to interview Sarah "Drill, Baby, Drill" Palin, or Darth Cheney, or John McCain.  While I usually don't care to hear what any of these individuals have to say, NOW I DO.  What response do these individuals have to the Gulf leak?  I want to know!  Don't you?

These are my questions, and I'd like to have them answered.  I find it very curious that Cheney, who has been so outspoken and critical of President Obama since Day 1 of his presidency, has been so markedly silent about the Gulf leak.  Could it be that his company, Halliburton, is somehow involved?  Cheney played quite a prominent role in deregulating the oil industry, which I believe contributed to this environmental and financial fiasco, so why isn't that being reported?  It's as though the media (or the government?) has declared "hands off" season on Cheney.  Why is he being given a free pass if he helped orchestrate this debacle?

I'm usually sick to death of seeing and hearing about Sarah Palin's escapades, or political backings, and especially her ignorant speeches.  Why isn't she being asked what she thinks of this mess?  Instead, even the more liberal news shows, like MSNBC's Hardball, Ed Shultz Show, Keith Olbermann, and even Rachel Maddow continue to show Palin stumping for her Tea Party candidates - but NEVER question her publicly about her continued support for offshore and inland drilling!  Why not?  Why is she so off-limits?  I want to know how she can still support the deregulation of the oil companies, when we have such a grave consequence because of it.  I want to know if she still supports deregulation and drilling.  Don't you?

John McCain, that wolf in sheep's clothing, is another politician that I'd like to hear give his take on the whole situation.  He's also been strangely silent.  Why isn't the media commenting about that?  I just don't understand why these ultra-critical conservatives are being given a FREE PASS by the media!

Yesterday, I heard a couple of things that give me pause to ponder.  The first thing I heard was that BP may not be able to stop the leak EVER, and the second was that while the oil companies have invested millions in technology research as far as drilling in greater depths, etc., they have NOT invested monies in safety or clean-up technology!  Basically, that means they've been investing money in those technologies that would enable them to drill for more oil and ensure greater profits, but they have NOT invested any money in technology that would enable them to clean up their messes or better yet, prevent them from happening in the first place - because it's not profit-driven.

Norway, for example, has a policy that if any company does off-shore drilling, they must FIRST have a "relief" well in place - "just in case".  That makes good sense to me.  Yet, yesterday, Trent Lott (remember him?), who is now an attorney FOR THE OIL COMPANIES (no surprise there), said that that was a WASTE OF MONEY.  So...Norway is SMARTER than the U.S.?  Apparently so.

I was thinking yesterday, "Why don't they just have big tubes that suction the oil off the water, much like a big vacuum cleaner?"  I got my answer.  The oil companies haven't developed that technology.  Yet, if a layperson like me can think of that possibility, surely there must have been other people out there, particularly within the oil industry itself, that could have developed such a technology.  Was the money just not there?  No one wanted to spend money on it?

I think the time is right, now, for President Obama to declare a national emergency.  I think it's time to call on the scientists of the world for solutions.  I think it's time to send out a global SOS.  It's been almost two months, now, with oil spewing into the Gulf at a rate of thousands of barrels a day.  The environmental and financial damage is destroying ecosystems, industries, and livelihoods - and what's really scary is that it might be forever....

Plus, the toxins from the chemical dispersents that BP has been using is now taking their toll on the people who are doing clean-up.  Respiratory problems, skin rashes, and other symptoms have grown so severe that a team of doctors have now been brought in to treat them.  

Another alarming development is that BP, or agents hired by them, have been "removing" dead carcasses from the Gulf in an effort to downplay the damage to marine life.  They've been caught literally "raking" dead carcasses out of the ocean and in some cases, beheading them.  As if that isn't gory enough, the reason for the beheading is so complete autopsies can't be done.  Can't see what's being done to the "brain" if there isn't one....

And so, on it goes.  When will it end?  We may never see an end to it.  If, as it was discussed yesterday on the cable news channels, BP doesn't have the ability to stop this leak, then the damage will be ongoing and catastrophic.  The ocean currents will carry the oil around the Florida peninsula and up the East Coast and out into the Atlantic Ocean.  What will that do to marine life?  The fishing industry?  Our ecosystem?  

And my final thought - is this the beginning of what Revelations meant by saying that one-third of our marine life on this planet will die in the end days?  Are we so full of greed that we are willing to destroy our planet in the process? Aren't we supposed to be stewards of this planet?  The earth?  Aren't we supposed to protect it?  How can these ultra-conservatives that are for deregulation and pooh-pooh the environmentalists, claim to be Christians, when as such, they have been given the responsibility of stewardship of the earth?  I'd like an explanation, please.

Do Negative Campaign Ads Work?

Do negative campaign ads actually work? Every election cycle we hear the pollsters and pundits ask this same question over and over again. One would think that there is a clear, definitive answer, but perhaps it's not such a simple question.

Speaking for myself, negative campaign ads turn me off. Although, I have to admit that it depends somewhat on whether it's my candidate that's doing the negative campaigning - and if the allegations are true, at least, in my perception.

This election cycle is proving to be one of the worst for negative campaigning. In my state there are several campaigns currently underway, including a senatorial race in which the Republican incumbent of 20+ years actually endorsed an ad accusing his opponent of murder.

Then there's the presidential campaign ads. I will have to say that while both Republican and Democratic candidates have endorsed negative campaign ads, there is a difference in their substance and style. The Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, has endorsed ads attacking the policies of his Republican opponent, John McCain. I tend to regard that as fair game, even though I dislike negative ads. I'd much rather watch an ad that tells me what a candidate's platform is, although I think that's become an archaic campaign tool that doesn't get nearly enough play in modern politics.

The Republican candidate, John McCain, on the other hand, has resorted to more personal attacks ads against his opponent. These are the sort of negative ads that really turn me off. They turn me off because I regard them as "smoke and mirrors" - they are meant to confuse and even instill fear and loathing in voters for the "other." McCain's ads are rife with suggestions and outright accusations that Obama is a terrorist, a Muslim, antiamerican, unpatriotic, naive, against the middle class, and more.

Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, has hurled many of these accusations unabashedly. In fact, in one interview, she accused Obama of befriending domestic terrorists, loosely defined as those who commit illegal and harmful acts against innocent human beings. However, when pressed to further specify her definition of "domestic terrorist", she was quick to point out that in her view, individuals who bomb abortion clinics and harm or even kill workers or clients are not included in her definition of "domestic terrorist." I find that not only curious, but dangerous, because that means that to Sarah Palin, anyone who works or makes an appointment at an abortion clinic are not "innocent human beings." According to Palin's definition, injuring or killing these people is merely "unacceptable." But it's not domestic terrorism. I must disagree.

What bothers me most, I think, is that there are so many willing Americans who actually believe negative ads. For the most part, I think these are people who aren't able to think for themselves, first and foremost. These are individuals who would rather be told what to think because it's easier than having to sort fact from fiction themselves. It's just too much trouble. So they look to the person or persons that they most identify with, usually those that look or talk like them, and just go with what they're told. Second, I think that people who respond to negative attack ads are people who react to their emotions rather than act upon their thoughts. Third, ignorant and uneducated people seem to respond to ads that appeal to their emotions more so than those who are more knowledgeable and educated. I believe there is a critical thinking element that is missing in the ignorant and uneducated, and it is to these people that negative attack ads are primarily directed.

But this election cycle has seen the most egregious negative ads in modern history. Fact checkers have found that McCain's ads and Palin's accusations are unfounded. They are either outright lies or they are distortions of the truth. But will most people take the trouble to check out whether this dishonorable duo are telling voters the truth or lying to them? I have my doubts.

I have to say that I have seen John McCain reduced to a new low. His pathetic, whining attempts to belittle and denigrate Barack Obama have only induced me to delve deeper into Obama's proposed policies and I have lost all respect for McCain. I am also troubled by his ultimate lack of judgment in his pick of a running mate. While McCain insists that Obama is not ready to lead, McCain himself is living proof that he is not capable of picking a qualified running mate, one who presumably might become president should something happen to McCain, which, given his age and cancerous medical history, is a distinct possibility.

Palin reminds me of a member of some high school clique. I'm sure everyone know the kind of gal I'm talking about - the ones who were the "popular" girls in high school, and usually the ones that made fun of and were often downright cruel to the "ugly, fat, and unpopular" girls. That seems to be Palin's mentality, and that's fine, I guess, but it's not becoming or befitting a Vice President. (Of course, Cheney's "fuck you" remark on the senate floor was also unbecoming, so maybe this is just a Republican thing....) What is troubling about Palin is that she actually believes that vp's "control" the senate. Then again, given the last eight years, she might be more right than wrong. Republicans no longer seem to consider our country's Constitution, but rather seem to be wont to make their own laws.

But back to the negative ads - I haven't seen any negative personal attacks on McCain from the Obama campaign. And there could be, if they wanted to take the same low road as their Republican opponents. For example, how about the fact that McCain never went to college? Not having the benefit of a college education, how qualified is he to be President? Does he have the intellectual capacity for the job? The fact that McCain is a military man who advocates the same kind of "force mentality" as G.W. Bush reminds me of a warning by Repubican Dwight D. Eisenhower about the "military industrial complex." That might make a good ad, but I don't see Obama stooping to that, or to the fact that McCain was an adulteror who abandoned his first wife, who remained faithful during the 5+ years that McCain was a POW, only to have him return home to run around on her with his rich mistress, Cindy - now his wife. Or how about the fact that Cindy McCain has a problem with drug addiction? Even better, an ad touting McCain's problem with "anger management." What about the fact that McCain's cancer might come back, making him an irresponsible, undependable choice for President? All of these I would consider to be negative personal attack ads - but Obama chooses the high road and refuses to consider running them.

Because Obama chooses to attack McCain on his policies, which is fair game, I have more respect for Obama. Obama has shown himself to be intelligent (he did go to college), thoughtful, calm, and confident. These are all qualities which I believe are needed for the position of President of the United States. The last thing we need at this point in our history is someone who is unprincipled, rash, emotional, angry, and unstable - all those things which I now believe McCain to be.

I believe that most people who can think for themselves, those people for whom rational thought, moral values, common decency, and diplomacy are valued ideals, will conclude, as have I, that Obama is the better choice - and I daresay, the better man. For these people, I believe McCain's negative ads will have diminished his stature on the political stage forevermore.

But for the ignorant, the uneducated, the over-emotional, and the downright stupid, I'm afraid McCain and Palin's "dog and pony show" will prevail. Perhaps these people are incapable of rational thought. It is inconceivable to me that McCain and Palin's disrepectful, dishonorable, and often disgusting behavior actually appeals to what should be mature, decent individuals.

But here's a thought. Since Palin's husband is one of the leaders of a group that wants Alaska to secede from the Union (aka the United States - yes, this is true) - perhaps all those misguided individuals who believe the vile vomit coming out of McCain and Palin's mouths could move to Alaska. Then, perhaps we could let Alaska secede, with McCain and Palin as President and Vice President. Unfortunately, Alaska deserves better.

So, don't be fooled. Negative campaign ads will probably never go away altogether; but I sincerely hope that one day soon legislation will be passed that prohibits, or at least greatly curtails, the type of negative campaign ads that can be produced. Personal attack ads should be prohibited altogether, because the American people deserve better.

Bono, Shriver, Aids and Project Red

So Bono and Bobby Shriver have created Project Red. Their plan is to have Americans buy "red" products - from clothing to cell phones and more. Their plan is to raise money for Aids. That is noble, in and of itself.

But Bono is a fan of George W. Bush, and Bobby Shriver is the brother of seduced-by-the-darkside Maria Shriver - and we all know who she's married to. (Hint - "I'll be back").

Does it totally escape their minds that this is an emotionally charged election year in the U.S.???

Does their choice of the color red have anything to do with the fact that they both support Bush???

Well, I'll be damned if I'm going to buy their red products!!! I refuse to wear the color of the enemy - and I consider the Bush administration, along with the Republican party (or at least, the radical faction of it) to be enemies of the United States. Bush & Cheney should be impeached, and they, along with Rumsfeld, should be tried for treason and crimes against humanity (war crimes).

Is Bono blind? One could expect Shriver to advocate for the color red - but is Bono really that enamoured of Bush?

Neither red nor blue should have been chosen for this project. Red may be the color of emergency, but it's also the color of blood - such as the spilt blood of almost 3,000 american soldiers, killed in Iraq. Red is also the color of the Republican Party that brought us this ill-fated war.

Why can't Bono see that? Shriver may be shrewd; certainly this is not lost on him. Bono should have known better.

I'm boycotting Project Red. I have vowed not to wear the color red, nor buy anything red until Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld are gone.

If Bono and Shriver have a shred of decency, they will be sensitive to the feelings of the millions of Americans who want to help prevent & cure Aids, but who also abhore the color red for what it represents - our own, very American, axis of evil.

Jack Conway and the Race that Wasn't

In September, Jack Conway was asked point blank if he was going to run as the Democratic challenger to Republican Anne Northup in the 3rd Congressional District of Kentucky, and he said, "I'm thinking about it."

At that time, he said he would let people know by the first week of October. When the first week of October came and went, it became "next week."

As the weeks came and went, that became "in a few days."

As the months, weeks, and days passed by, Jack was courted by the DCCC, even taking a trip to Washington, D.C. Everyone talked about Conway running against Northup. After all, he had experience, having run against her a few years back, and came pretty darn close to beating her.

This time, the stage was set for victory. The Republicans are on the run. Anne Northup is as vulnerable as she will ever be. Jack Conway was assured both financial and volunteer support from the DCCC to the Kentucky Democratic Party to the grassroots. Everybody Jack talked to knew he could win, and so did Jack. So what happened?

He told some people that he was waiting for his family to give him the go ahead. Asked if his fiancee (he's getting married in May) was supportive, he was quick to assure us she was indeed supportive of his running.

So who wasn't? Family usually means either a husband or wife, or one or both parents. In this case, has to be the latter. Now why would a father or mother not wish their son to win a Congressional race against one of the most despicable politicians in Kentucky?

I guess if they'd rather have him run for the top spot, or second top spot, in Kentucky, instead. Consider, then, the implications. If Conway's parents, of whom at least one is a very powerful individual, withdrew their support for their son's Congressional bid, what's a middle-aged guy to do?

Well, here's my take on the whole situation.

Jack Conway strung this community along for months, apparently while trying to talk his parents into supporting him, which includes financially (remember, powerful people get contributions). Assurances by the DCCC, the Democratic Party, friends, and grassroots individuals apparently were not enough if Conway didn't have the support of his family.

I grew up in an era where Civics was taught in Jr High School. Civics has long since passed out of the public school curriculum, but I sincerely advocate its comeback for precisely this reason: Civics teaches the young student the symbiotic relationship between citizen and nation-state, which is a relationship of rights and responsibilities. The nation-state has a responsibility to do its duty to provide for the common good by ensuring the well-being of the individual, but the citizen also has a duty to serve the nation-state when needed. This always takes the form of voting, which is the responsibility of the individual, but more than that, when the nation-state needs an individual to serve, and there is no one else to do the job, it is incumbent upon the citizen to answer the call.

Jack Conway did not do that. Instead, he turned his back on the 3rd Congressional District, on the State of Kentucky, and on his country. Does that sound harsh? Good.

Anne Northup and every Republican like her are a blight on this country. Each individual Congressperson makes up the body of the whole. We need voices that fight for Democratic values of justice, fairness, and equality for all, and most importantly, for the moral value of doing the right thing, even if it's hard to do.

Jack Conway has turned his back on these basic Democratic values, saying "not yet."

Well, Jack, here's my reply: "Take your sorry ass back home and stick a fork in it, because you're done." Forget about running for Governor or even Lt. Governor in 2007, because the people of Kentucky will not forget, especially if they are still smarting from a loss in the 2006 election. Forget about running for Atty. General - Stumbo is doing a fantastic job.

Moreover, if Conway doesn't have sufficient fire in his belly to run in a race that he has to know he can win, then why do we want him for any elected position? If his family counts on him to win anything in 2007, I think they're going to be disappointed.

But the worst faux pas that Conway committed is stringing Democrats along for so long that it will now be virtually impossible to find someone who can challenge Northup. A campaign should already be beginning. And the worst humiliation of all? Northup and her Republican cohorts must be laughing their collective asses off.

This is one Kentuckian who will never forget Jack Conway's betrayal of our trust. He took away our hope, our dream, and quite possibly, our chances of finding another candidate.

Jack, you just don't screw your public like that and expect to show your face in public again, let alone deserve our support.

Hit the road, Jack, and don't come back no more, no more, no more. You deserve every harsh word and criticism you get.

Conway abandons voters to Northup's craven fealty to Bush, DeLay

Democrats, Stand Up for America!

Democrats, stand up for America! Rep. Murtha is leading the way, giving you permission. What are you waiting for? A Republican invitation? C'mon.

So many opportunities to hammer Republicans are being missed. Democrats need their own version of "the hammer".

For instance, Rep. Nussle (R-Iowa) stood on the house floor the other night and said that government has no business making private decisions for its citizens. Really? Then I guess that Rep. Nussle believes that government has no business making personal reproductive decisions for American women, either. We can all breathe a collective sigh of relief.

But where are the comments from Democrats? Are Democrats so afraid to even broach the subject of abortion that they'll pass up a golden opportunity like this, to see Republicans' pants all in a tussle, scrambling for their spin doctors?

Grow some balls, boys and girls. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch, or, in other words, you can't pee like a puppy.

And why haven't we heard any response from Democrats regarding Hastert's speech? Nancy Pelosi stood on the House floor and read two letters from Catholic Charities and the American Council of Churches, stating that "budgets are moral documents", beseeching the House not to pass stringent budget cuts aimed at the nation's poor, including cuts to Food Stamps, Student Aid, Housing, etc.

In response, Republican Hastert got up and said that the House couldn't be held hostage by "religious morality", that they had a job to do and the people that elected them expected them to do it.

WAIT a minute. Here we have a Republican administration that's ALL about "religious morality" when it comes to abortion and gay marriage, we have a Republican president that wears his religion on his sleeve, and the Speaker of the House blatantly speaks out AGAINST "religious morality"?

Which one is it? Republicans can't pick and choose when to be sufficiently moral. They either are, or they aren't. (Put your hands down, we all know the answer to that!)

But WHERE are our Democrats? Why haven't they pointed this out?

Folks, this is the stuff that confuses the hell out of the electorate, and they need to be confused. They need to learn the truth about the Republicans they've elected. They need to learn about the hyprocricy and the lies. Who else is going to point this out to them?

Granted, not many people are up at 3 am watching the House of Representatives duke it out. And most people are too busy watching CSI and Survivor during prime time. But what's the excuse of all the Democrats in the House that sat there and listened to these diatribes?

And BTW, I have to say that it's becoming much more fun to watch the House of Representatives these days. I think they must all be watching British Parliamentary proceedings quite a bit lately, because the House is much more animated than it used to be, complete with hooting, hollering, and of course, Nussle strutting around like the peacock that he is. (Where on earth did Iowans dig him up?)

So, when it comes to Rep. Murta, someone for whom I have profound and deep respect for having the courage and integrity to stand up and say to this administration and the American people, "It's time to go," we should all be supportive. I called his office in Washington, D.C. shortly after I saw his televised speech, to thank him. You could hear the glow in his staff's voice as she thanked ME for calling.

We should all be calling Rep. Murtha. This isn't some liberal, folks. This is a guy that fought in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars (and yes, Vietnam was a war, not a "conflict"), has two purple hearts, and moreover, has the ear of Pentagon generals. If Murtha got up and said what he did, you'd better believe that this is what the Pentagon is thinking, too.

So what the HELL is wrong with our House Democrats for not following Murtha's lead?

Can they really be that clueless?

And again, talk about missed opportunities. Here you have House Republicans deriding Murtha and Democrats in general for advocating withdrawal, or at least, a timetable, saying that it demoralizes the troops.

Well, gee, I don't know, but if I were a soldier over in Iraq, and my President and Vice-President advocated for torturing prisoners, I'd be crapping my pants and hoping that I wouldn't be captured by the insurgents. Talk about demoralizing!

WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS? I really wanna know.

Dobson's Dilemma

Dr. Dobson has a dilemma. Apparently this Focus on the Family evangelical Christian has been getting phone calls from U.S. Congressmen and other administration officials, including Karl Rove. Here's a link to his radio show on October 5, 2005:

http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/Archives.asp

During his radio broadcast, he seeks to reassure his listeners that Bush has made an "outstanding" decision in nominating Miers. He bases this on the fact that Bush "knows" Miers' heart (a scary thought), and that Dobson knows the person who "led" Miers to Christ, among other things.

Listening to this radio broadcast, Dobson probably reveals more about Miers than what's known by most Americans.

For example, Miers apparently said that she did not support the repeal of the Texas sodomy law. (Bad news for gays.)

Dobson also makes clear Bush's goals to reform the Supreme Court, and to "support life."

Particularly troubling to me is that our Congressmen are actually calling this conservative Christian asking him "WHAT SHOULD THEY DO?" They're not just asking his opinion, they're asking him what to do. Why should any U.S. Congressperson ask James Dobson how they should vote on this matter? This should raise a red flag to any American.

Dobson also is quite confidant that Miers will overturn Roe v Wade, that she will reform the Supreme Court according to Bush, and will not betray him.

Dobson said "this is about babies." Alarms should be going off in your head, now. Dobson is quite confidant that Miers will overturn Roe. He has to be, or he wouldn't sit there and say that "the blood of babies will be on my head if I'm wrong."

He also talks about "things he shouldn't know" about Miers, apparently told to him by Karl Rove. (Rove seems to be making a career of talking out of school - first he outs a CIA agent, now he's telling Dobson State secrets. Hasn't Rove ever heard "loose lips sink ships"?)

Dobson is a conceited, self-important man - even when he prays, he tells God what God thinks! Pride goeth before a fall.

Also troubling is that Dobson doesn't think he should have to tell anyone what Rove has told him, citing confidentiality. Bad news for Dobson. He may have a doctorate in psychology, but confidentiality does not extend to what someone other than a patient tells him, even in confidence. And even confidentiality within the confines of a client-therapist relationship has its parameters.

I hope Dobson is called to testify in Miers' nomination hearings. I'd like to see him refuse to testify before Congress on what Rove told him, citing confidentiality, because it won't hold up as a point of law.

The ball is in the Democrats' court again. Let's hope they don't pass on this one, like they did on Roberts. I can already hear the Songs of Lamentation.

Bush's War on the Poor

Bush is declaring War on the Poor. No doubt about it. This began in his first administration, when the first thing he did was grant humongous tax cuts for the wealthy. Some might ask, "how does this affect the poor?" After all, tax cuts were given to the poor as well as to the wealthy, weren't they? Well, no, not really. There's a big difference between a several hundred thousand dollar tax cut and one that averages out to be less than $100 for the average low-income tax payer.

But even that's not the biggest problem with those tax cuts. Despite the fact that the federal government derives its income from the people in the form of taxes, Bush thought it was just fine to reduce the federal coffers by billions of dollars per year. That would have been bad enough, but Bush's popularity was waning, even after just 8 mos. in office. What's a guy who likes to spend the majority of his time on vacation looking for bugs on his ranch in Texas to do? After all, he wasn't really needed all that much in Washington; Bush is just the pretty boy front man for the men who really call the shots - Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and quite possibly Paul Wolfowitz, and Big Daddy himself, George H.W. Bush. Never underestimate the old man's power.

Of course, it just doesn't look good for the President to be absent from his job so often, and the people know when they've made a mistake. How to fix it? According to Bush Sr.'s and Wolfowitz's pet project - A Project for the New American Century, as www.newamericancentury.org - the best way to get the people to rally around the President is to have a war and win decisively. Enter the plan to allow 9/11 to go forward. I happen to be one of those firm believers that Bush and Co. allowed 9/11 to happen. I do not believe in coincidences. I never have. At first, I didn't want to believe that our President, Vice-President, and others in the present administration could have conspired to even allow such an attack upon American soil, but eventually I had to face the facts, which were too many. To believe otherwise, I would have had to accept too many coincidences, and as I said, I don't believe in coincidence.

I'll even go so far as to entertain the possibility that Bush and Co. not only allowed 9/11, but actually invited it, orchestrated it.

After all, Osama bin Laden is a member of the same Saudi family with which the Bush family has close personal and business ties. Bush "doesn't think about him [Osama] much", curious for the "war president" to say about a man who killed 3,000 American citizens in one fell swoop.

Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, but they're the ones who were invaded. Afghanistan doesn't have any oil. Whoever controls the world's oil supplies, controls the world. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with lowering oil prices in the U.S.

The main goals of the Bush administration are all about business and rewarding the rich. Business is all that matters. Whether it's Haliburton in Iraq or Haliburton in Louisianna, it's all about profit.

Bush won't go after illegal immigrants, which has some conservatives scratching their heads. They can't understand why he doesn't do something about border control. What they can't grasp is that Bush seeks to create a pseudo-slave society. Illegal immigration fits perfectly into this scenario. CHEAP LABOR. Bush doesn't care about Americans without jobs. He only cares that big business gets cheap labor.

And with all those wealthy tax cuts, which we all know has done and will do nothing to stimulate our economy, Bush deprives the federal coffers of monies needed to fund things like education, food stamps, housing, medicaid, etc. All those social programs that the wealthy do not believe in. Not if you want to keep the poor subservient. Why should tax dollars go to help the elderly, the disabled, and the poor?

Anyone who questions Bush's intent to dismantle Social Security should think again.

People should only get what they work for. Anything goes in business, nothing is illegal, and laissez-faire is the attitude of the federal government, and of any State and local governments run by Republicans. It's all about rewarding those that are just as ruthless and heartless as they are.

Americans need to learn once and for all that there is NO SUCH THING as compassionate conservativism. Make no mistake, Bush's War is on the Poor.

Don't let him get away with it. Beginning in 2006, vote Democrat. Get the Republicans out of office. Demand election reform and paper trails. Demand publicly financed campaigns, thereby eliminating much fraud and deceit.

Demand Democracy. Otherwise, we are left with a Totalitarian form of Nazism.

Controversial Iraq Porn/Dead Bodies Site

I've read about this site, but never imagined that I would ever see it. After all, these sites usually get shut down as soon as too many people know about them, right? Not in this case.

I was going through one of my email inboxes a few hours ago, and came across an email that I hadn't opened. I belong to a good many internet discussion groups, and this one I had joined, but had not yet read any of the emails from the group. In fact, this email was sent on Sunday, and today is Tuesday, so I usually just delete most of the groups' emails older than a couple of days, whether I've read it or not. After all, I can always go to the website and read the messages there, if I really want.

Well, for some reason, I clicked on this email, and saw only three messages. I wanted to get a feel for the group, which is what I usually do, to see if I might be interested in participating in a discussion, or even if I want to read the emails on a regular or semi-regular basis. The first email was from a professor at CUNY, lamenting the state of academic affairs. I read it with semi-interest, noting it's veracity, and then proceeded to the other two emails. I never made it to the third email, because the second email riveted me.

As I said, I had heard of this "gory picture for porn" scandal, and never thought I'd ever hear much more about it, let alone see it with my own eyes. But see it I did. And I'm going to post the link here for you to see, too. The writer of the email ventured that the public needs to see this, and gory as it is, I have to agree. "Support our troops" has taken on a whole new meaning for me. If this is what our troops are up to, we're in deep fucking shit, excuse my English, because we have some very sick puppies serving over there in Iraq.

Here's the link to the article in East Bay Express: http://http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2005-09-21/news/news_print.html

The article is bad enough, but to really see what our soldiers are up to, you have to go to: http://nowthatsfuckedup.com/ and click on "enter this site". But beware, you might never be the same. It will (or should) shock, disgust, and sicken you. Upon entering the site, you can browse around. There's alot of porn, in fact, that's purportedly what the site is for. That's bad enough. I hate porn, and for the life of me, I can't understand any soldier putting his wife/girlfriend on a site like this, nor can I imagine her agreeing to it. I guess it just goes to show you the extent of our troops' moral decadence. I have to wonder if that is an accurate reflection of our society. I also have to wonder what the religious right would think about their beloved troops if they saw this site.

Anyway, the porn isn't what I went there for, and if it isn't what you're there for (hopefully), then you'll have to browse around and look for folders that say something like "Iraq and Afghanistan pictures", and there are a few of them scattered around. You can also click on the "Search" button at the top of the site and enter "Iraq" and you will be redirected to a page with folders and pictures of Iraqis that are not only dead, but that obviously died tortuous, violent deaths at the hands of our American soldiers.

And you gotta read the captions our brave soldiers have put on these pictures of theirs.

I'm so proud. NOT.

If this is what it means to be an American soldier today, then as I said, we're in deep shit. It's no wonder we're hated by the Iraqis. I have no doubt that our karma is going to take a deep kick in the ass sometime in the near future. It is inevitable.

But don't take my word for it. Go see for yourselves. Be forewarned, though, it is not for the squeamish or the faint-hearted. This is some hardcore shit. And I'm not talking about the porn. It will change the way you think about our military, and our soldiers. It may even change the way you think about our government and a military that supports this kind of thing. It's worse, much worse, than we ever imagined. This is BushWorld.

This is what happens when we have a "war President".

Just do me one favor. Spread the word. Copy the urls. Make sure everyone you know, and even those you don't, see these pictures. The world has got to know.

What About Harriet Miers?

What about Harriet Miers? I've never heard of her before today, but that in and of itself is not a bad thing. Nor is it a bad thing that she has had no judicial experience. That's what seems to be the focus of the media.

But should this be the focus of the media? I believe what the media should be focusing on is the fact that this is a woman who has close, personal ties to Bush.

What do we know about Harriet Miers? We know that she is about 61 years old, we know that she is unmarried, we know that she was born and raised in Texas, we know that she received both her undergraduate and graduate degree in law from a Southern Methodist University, we know that she was Bush's personal lawyer when he was Governor of Texas, we know that Bush brought her to Washington, we know that she was appointed White House council in 2004.

And there is much here that disturbs me.

She is roughly 61 years old and has never been married. Neither of these things, in and of themselves, are necessarily bad. I'm not worried about someone of that age being appointed to the Supreme Court. She will have roughly only 20-25 years, give or take, on the court. That's not as serious as say, Roberts' tenure of a possible 40 or more years to influence Supreme Court decisions in a conservative way.

She's never been married. Also not terribly important, on the face of it. I don't necessarily think one has to be married to understand how marriage might impact one's personal views and life. She can still understand reproductive issues, domestic issues, etc. And in this day and age, it is not so unusual to find that a woman might have invested more heavily in her career than in her personal relationships. Maybe she just never found anyone she wanted to marry. If there was one thing I might be worried about here, it would be that because she has so devoted herself to her career, that's where her loyalties lie. More about that later.

She was born and raised in Texas. Ok. It's not Texas' fault that Bush chose it to adopt as his home State. But it does seem that alot of people from Texas seem to run in the same circles, and boy, they sure do seem loyal to those that have helped them along the way. Keep that in mind.

She attended a religious university. I'm a Methodist. I know people who have attended Methodist Universities. It may not be Oral Roberts, but it's not that much different. A religious university is just that. While it's true that Methodism, as it is called, is not the same as fundamental evangelicalism, it still has its own brand of fundamentalism. The plus is that Methodism is well known for its stance on social justice. The minus is that Southern Methodism is much more conservative than United Methodism.

She was Bush's personal lawyer during his tenure as Governor of Texas. This concerns me. Bush has identified her as a personal friend. He has a long-term working relationship with her. Therefore, she most likely knows him well. She most likely knows his beliefs, thoughts, and desires. She may quite likely know his agenda.

In fact, she was so liked by Bush that he brought her to Washington, D.C. with him and eventually appointed her White House council. Obviously, she is a bright and competent attorney. That's a plus.

But again, just as in Roberts' case, what's not a plus, and what's most disturbing to me, with both of these individuals, is their close proximity to Bush himself.

This is glaringly obvious in the case of Harriet Miers.

How objective would she be? Would she follow Bush's wishes? Is her ultimate loyalty to Bush? Or to the American people? She has said she is a strict Constitutionalist. Bush has said she will not legislate from the bench.

All of these are alarm bells.

I think there is a very real possibility that this woman will reward her benefactor, Bush. He seems to have done much for her career. Now we're into murky waters. She's not married. Is Bush a substitute husband for her? I'm not suggesting any impropriety; I'm merely suggesting a possible emotional attachment on her part to a man whom she has known for decades, and is quite possibly one of the only men with whom she has had a close, personal relationship.

She has a conservative background, witnessed by her choice of universities. Yes, she was the first woman to serve as President of the Dallas and Kentucky Bar Associations, but we all know that sometimes it's who you know that further one's career. That she comes from a State that seems to produce more than its share of politicians who practice cronyism and patronage is not comforting. And even if that weren't true, at most, these could only testify as to her acumen as an attorney, and leadership ability.

It is my opinion that the media should be focusing on two things: Her ability to express an opinion independent of Bush's wishes; and just how conservative this woman might be.

One can only hope that when questionned, she will be more forthcoming than her predecessor, John Roberts.

USATODAY.com - Bush encounters setback as Senate blocks Bolton vote

USATODAY.com - Bush encounters setback as Senate blocks Bolton vote

Is Bolton a bully or, as the Republicans insist, a reformer? Well, I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm leaning toward bully.

Make no mistake, the radical, right-wing regime has an agenda. Bush is a meglomaniac - and he's mild compared to Karl Rove, the silent enemy behind the Bush mask.

These radical rogues have all but taken over our country. They control the media (which is NOT the liberal media of old, but is now 90%+ owned by conservatives) and are now attempting to control PBS; they have the majority in both the House and the Senate, so they basically are working to have total control of Congress; they are appointing so many repressive, right-wing judges that it makes our heads spin; they control the FBI and the CIA; they are succeeding in their attempt to control women by allowing pharmacists to decide whether or not they will fill birth control prescriptions (some will not) and their goal is Roe v Wade; and now they are attempting to control the U.N.

ANYONE OR ANYTHING that doesn't agree with their radical, right-wing ideology is a target. We're not just looking at totalitarianism in our own country, we're looking at total world control.

And the scary thing about that, last time I looked, is that this is exactly how the antiChrist will take control of the world.

Now, you can scoff and guffaw over that one, I don't really care. Making fun of something that a majority of people in this country believe exists doesn't bother me. I've often said that God's reality is the only reality that matters, and if God says that in the end times Satan will control the earth, then I believe it.

And it makes sense, given the current state of affairs, that this could actually be happening. Certain things have been in place for a long time, things that most people, myself included, were either clueless about, or didn't think much about. But when these things taken together start to click in unison, then events start happening pretty fast.

It's like building an interstate highway system. You can start building parts of it all over the country, and only that part of the country will see anything being built. It's a slow process, and it takes time. But once all the work is done and all the cities and states are connected, things move quickly. All of a sudden, the interstate is up and running, traffic's moving quickly, at faster speeds than before, and everything's changed.

And that's kind of how the Republican Party has masterminded this "hostile takeover" of our democracy.

For those who don't believe in the Bible, or in conspiracy theories, this won't make alot of sense. And all I can say to that is, we'll see. All I'm saying is that IF you believe in God, IF you believe in the devil, IF you believe that Satan's goal is to overthrow God, IF you believe what the Bible says about the end times, and IF you then consider, if you were going for world domination, how you would go about doing it, then all of this does make sense.

IF there is a Satan, and IF he is looking to take over the world to thwart God's plan for us, then the only reasonable way to do it is to move toward one world government/domination by one country over all the others. Otherwise it's too hard. It's much easier to take over one entity than it is several hundred.

So IF you can get the most powerful nation in the world under your command, as it can be speculated that Satan has done with the Bush administration, which incidentally, stands for just about everything Satan advocates (selfishness, greed, unethical behavior, hunger for power, deceit, warmongering, etc.) and nothing God stands for (service to others, compassion and empathy, ministering to the poor, the elderly, the widow, and the orphan, fairness, non-judgment of others, peace, and loving your neighbor), than it's just another step up the ladder to control the most powerful country in the world (us, and they are close to doing that now), and then just another step to control the U.N., which means that Satan would be that much closer to controlling the entire world.

Look at how easily the American people were duped by Bush. God says in the end times that people would have "scales over their eyes" and be blinded to the truth. That same thing can be applied to leaders of countries. Plus, besides that, some people and world leaders, I'm sure, have been and will be intimidated and threatened. There are already rampant rumors of what happens to Republicans who don't toe the party line. Imagine what can happen to countries that are dependent upon foreign aid.....

Well, this is just a scenario, but who's to say if it's true, or just a fabricated fantasy? I guess only God knows.

Social Security Scam and Cutthroat Conservatism

I'm one of those 50-somethings who has alot invested in Social Security. I want to make sure that I have a "guaranteed" income to fall back on when I retire. So, the Social Security scam proposed by the radical, right-wing, runaway-rogue faction of the Republican Party is particularly scary and upsetting for me.

Take the words "social" and "security". The word social implies that it's for everybody. Security means that it is secure, or guaranteed. Social Security was never meant to be anything other than a disability and retirement insurance program - but the unholy trinity and their legion of unholy demons in Washington, D.C., are trying to dismantle it. Why? So that the wealthy will benefit.

Who won't benefit? The workers who need it the most. The elderly, the widow, the orphan, etc. The very people that we are commanded to look after (Biblically and morally speaking).

The thing about Social Security is that the wealthy pay more into it than those who are earning minimum wage or slightly more. But wealthy people are less likely to draw Social Security, and since many wealthy people do invest, their dividends and other unearned income usually keep any Social Security paychecks they might receive, low. On the other hand, someone who's worked hard all their life earning minimum wage or somewhat better, has paid less into Social Security, but will end up drawing more out of it in the long run.

And that, my friends, is it in a nutshell. Huge tax cuts for the upper crust wasn't enough for this administration; now they want to rob the middle and lower classes of their insurance payments, to boot.

It's called greed. GREED. Coupled with greed is a total lack of compassion or concern for others. So what if you've worked your ass off for 50 years. It's YOUR fault that you weren't lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family; it's YOUR fault that you weren't talented enough to get a good paying job or start your own business, or that you weren't successful at your business; it's YOUR fault if you or your family weren't responsible and self-disciplined enough to make sure everyone was taken care of in their old age or when illness struck. The bottom line: it's YOUR FAULT, and they don't care if you roll over and die, as long as they can take more money to the bank.

These Republicans are rogues. They do not represent the mainstream, decent, hard-working Republican who may differ on political issues but have many of the same values as Democrats or Independents, or even Greens. NO, these are radical, extreme right-wing, fundamentalists. They are the equivalent to the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins in that their ideology is not mainstream - they are radicals. And they are willing to go to great lengths to perpetuate their agenda - for example, Iraq.

Curiously enough, people aren't listening to what these people are actually saying. If they were, they'd be scratching their heads and wondering what planet these guys and gals come from, and how the hell did they get in power in the first place. For some perplexing reason, most Republicans and even some Democrats, et. al., don't bother to compare the words spoken by these people and their actions.

For instance, these radical right-wing Republicans are constantly spouting the Bible. But do they actually evince an accurate understanding of God's Word? No, they don't.
If they did, they would understand that the majority of the Bible has to do with how we treat people. Jesus was constantly admonishing those that judged others, and he was also continously telling the rich that if they were to follow him, they must first give away their possessions to the poor. Naturally, that went over like a lead balloon, which is why Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

I guess George hasn't read this part - oh, wait a minute, I forgot, George doesn't read. Well, no wonder they don't get this part of the Bible. See, most fundamentalist evangelical preachers, the ones you usually see on TV or in the huge revivals that take place in sports arenas, are always preaching that God wants us to have the abundant life, and that means God wants us to be rich. Hmm, I wonder why. Could it be that they're always asking for the believers to send them money? And they're getting rich, so obviously they have to tell their followers that it's not only ok to be rich, but that God WANTS them to be rich. It's just a cover for their own bamboozling of God's people. And think how many people they've led astray. And how many more people have gone on to bamboozle others in the same vein.

How many people has G.W. bamboozled? Legion.

I'm sure God doesn't care if we're rich as long as we take care of the needy, the widow, and the orphan, etc., but Jesus knew it was hard for the rich to actually follow him. Why? Because "MY ways are not YOUR WAYS", saith the Lord. Jesus's ministry was about SERVICE to others. Not just those deemed worthy, but service to ALL. Remember what he said to HIs disciples as He washed their feet? If you want to lead, you must first serve.

I don't think George W. is used to being a servant. Or Cheney, or Rove, or Rumsfeld, or the whole lot of them. So, no, I don't think they can be trusted to talk about God's Word or anything else even remotely Christian, because they don't know the first thing about it.

Preachers need to start standing up to this Republican moral ruse. They need to start making an example of them to their congregations, instead of keeping quiet because they're afraid of repercussions. Although, that fear may be very well founded.

It is becoming well known that if you don't toe the radical Republican hard-core line, there will be political and personal repercussions by those "leaders" in the Party that take care of these things, i.e., Rove and his henchmen.

So, I challenge all good citizens that think that the Republican Party is the "moral" party to write and tell me just why you think that, and we'll discuss it next time.

Patriot Gal