UwillNotESCapeOccupation

As baseless excuses go for similar past expansive actions this one seems consistent. So Israel does the following after Palestine is recognized and accepted into UNESCO. I'll leave it to some of you to look up the evil objectives of UNESCO, balance the relative values, compare relative physical strengths and weight cultural fear against a cultural vacuum while I leave to others to fire from behind a Maginot Line. There is only an indefensible Zionist expansion wrapped loosely in legitimate security concerns and manifest against an occupied people. Starving a society because of a political affront is pathetic and Israel, of all nations, should be ashamed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15548585

The Charge of the Right Brigade

From Wikipedia: "Saint Crispin's Day falls on 25 October and is the feast day of the Christian saints Crispin and Crispinian) ... , twins who were martyred c. 286. It is a day most famous for the battles that occurred on it: the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the Battle of Balakava (Charge of the Light Brigade) during theCrimean War in 1854 and the Battle of Leyte Gulf ... in 1944." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Crispin%27s_Day

Shakespeare's "Agincourt" has been appropriately mentioned in this forum in the past but the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava strikes me at the moment. A charge toward the wrong objectives, with brash indifference to individual lives, driven by unchained ego and blind nobility, their leaders sent those who were "not to make reply" and "not to reason why" to destruction. Sitting now, tequila in hand, I see the same in the "Charge of the Right Brigade." Whether the destruction may be limited to their Party or extend to the country will have to be seen.. And it is said that the debacle was followed by champagne dinner for the leaders on a waiting yacht. Picture today's gathering at a private club.

The Success in Libya

I find it interesting that as President Obama today announced the killing of Gaddafi the President said that it was accomplished "without putting U. S. service members on the ground...." As I suggested some time ago, it seems to me that the statement does not preclude the probability that the CIA's "silent boots" had been a part of the successful effort. Well done.

By the way, I think it is disgraceful the way elected Republican leaders still denigrate the President for his strategic handling of what is a successful revolution in Libya. The President either did too little or too much, acted too late or acted too indirectly or too directly. In the midst of his criticism of the President and while emphatically congratulating England and France, Senator McCain emphasized in an afterthought how "grateful Libyans are" now toward the United States and how we should leverage that fact. Now, just why would they be so grateful to the U.S. if the strategy was wrong.

I suggest to the Republicans that, putting political posturing aside, and standing openly with the President to accept the Libyan appreciation jointly with NATO would be a bold statement to the world and would kick start the leveraging in Libya and greater Africa. After all, it was Congressional funding and Presidential direction that brought this about.

Foreign affairs are not going to be a major aspect of the 2012 election. It will of course be the economy. Accordingly, the denigration of the President now is only harmful to the future prospects of our country overseas and baseless in the internal political struggle. Putting Party loyalty and objectives aside and standing as Americans is probably too much to ask of those within the conservative juggernaut.

Limbaugh's Reality and the Lord's Resistance

A friend suggests that Mr. Limbaugh's defense of the Lord's Resistance Army, a group responsible for horrific atrocities, is proof of Limbaugh's insanity. I disagree

Isn't a definition of insanity the repeating of the same conduct while expecting different results? Limbaugh knows and acts repeatedly in the belief that when he makes an idiotic, false or twisted statement it will be picked up by his loyal and obedient actual-nutcases and take on a life of its own - a depraved but continuing existence. See, for example, http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/201110170022 Limbaugh has yet to accurately describe to his audience the L.R.A. or to accept personal responsibility thereby holding a semblance of credibility for his fools. And let's not forget another false assertion made during his broadcast that "Obama has sent troops to another war" intent on support of Muslim factions in Sudan. We have not seen the last of this either.

Even after he was advised on the air of the depravities committed by the LRA he blew on the coals saying: "But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys -- and they claim to be Christians."

And listen to the end of this brief portion of Limbaugh follow-up http://mediamalpractice.com/mmtv/201110180013 it's all one big laugh -- got that loyal, obedient, actual-nutcases it's just a joke and don't we pass on a good joke. No, my friend, he is not insane.Post Options

What Powers Your Pickup Truck?

A friend forwarded an interesting news article about the development of anger-powered automobiles. http://origin.theonion.com/audio/new-angerpowered-cars-may-revolutionize-the-way-we,26244/

Since anger-powered vehicles would be useless for the far left, kumbaya singing crowd, development of engines powered by compassion, love and hugs would be necessary as well. Of course, one can imagine how the vehicles made for the far right wingers would be powered:

1. momentum: enormous size of competitive models compensating for personal performance inadequacies.
2. spin: auto batteries charged by connecting to plugs within "spin rooms" occupied by "spin doctors" spinning ... post-Republican debates excellent power storage potential.
3. confabulation cylinders: unconscious filling in of gaps in the memory of voters by telling imaginary "facts" with easy recharge hookup to Fox HD.
4. ideology: actually a power source for both right and left wing vehicles ... ironically, the more concrete the ideology the more fluid the ride.
5. greed: awesome acceleration with no brakes ... however, good for the environment, economy, churches, hookers, illness, golf game, etc. and all future generation models.

6. selfishness: compact vehicle model for those not yet ready for greed driven vehicles.
7. hummer models: powered by "hum"= human "m"= migration "e"= emigrant "r"= refugees preferably illegals more inclined to run quietly ... power train easily transferable for garden work and house chores. Some interior variations to accommodate interns available.

A Salute

"We meet 'neath the sounding rafter,
And the walls around are bare.
As they shout back our peals of laughter,
It seems that the dead are there.
Then stand to your glasses steady,
We drink in our comrades' eyes.
One cup to the dead already,
Hurrah for the next man that dies."

World War I song, "Stand to Your Glasses."

A Rush to Judgment

The U. S. Attorney General has requested and, accordingly, will probably see an early decision by the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Conservative challengers to its constitutionality have been pressing the issue as well for an early decision by the Court.

A decision prior to the election by the Supreme Court upholding the Law would place the issue of repeal squarely at the top of the Republican 2012 election agenda. Given the almost total misunderstanding of the American people about the law and the lack of time for education, the Republicans may well achieve their goal of winning in 2012.

On the other hand, a decision of the Supreme Court in the Spring of 2012 holding the law or a critical element of the law unconstitutional would be a benefit to the President. He could then face the electorate honestly claiming to have tried to better their lives albeit with a slightly inappropriate approach and promise to correct the effort.

I assume therefore that the administration expects or at least hopes for a holding of unconstitutionality.

In any event, the fact that the Republicans orchestrated and acceded to the lies and distortions at the core of America's lack of faith in the law will not help the President. The fact that the Republican administration of George Bush created the breeding fields for those who nearly destroyed our economy will not help the President. The facts that Republicans in Congress purposely both created major delays and built legislative impasses to economic recovery will not help the President.

Why not? Because there are too many American people who are too easily manipulated, disinterested in learning facts about important issues, selfish and self-centered, disorganized, short-memoried and lacking the deep pockets of Republican backers interested only in maintaining existing financial/economic paradigms without oversight.

Useless Candidates = Useless Party

The question has been asked:"Why are the Republican presidential candidates so useless?" http://www.economist.com/node/21530979?fsrc=nlw%7Cedh%7C09-29-11%7Ceditors_highlights

I suggest that the answer lies in the absence of substance at the core of a Republican Party. The Republican Party, as presently constituted and self-defined, offers nothing but redundant rhetoric to the American people. For almost three years, the elected officials of the Republican Party, nationally and regionally, have fostered fear and a perverse adhering to ideology. Acceding to Right Wing fanaticism (itself paid for and promoted by corporate self-interest) the Party has foregone rational examination of its own identity. These candidates pander and rant on with tautological rhetoric now decomposing. To propagandize lies and distortions successfully to a citizenry does not validate the lies and distortions. Republican candidates see the success of such propaganda and point vigorously only to what they see as the flotsam of the current administration and on each others' resumes. At least a few of the candidates may recognize the isolation the Party has created for itself. It cannot produce a candidate with the courage to hold up a mirror. The Republican Party cannot produce a voice with the promise desired by and in the best interests of the new silent majority.

You See Surrender. I See Necessity.

A friend presents two articles in which he finds "subdued towel-tossing" on the left. I suggest that he continues to see only what you wants to see.

I respond: The "Obama captained ship," you surely must recognize, has a crucial portion of its crew, over which the "captain" has no control, intent on insuring that the ship makes no progress.

Your labeling of an "embedded towel-signal" in a Friedman note that lambastes the Republican intransigence is merely a recognition of a personal crying towel for one disappointed writer of opinion. Friedman is obviously disappointed with the President's strategy not aligning with what he had "argued [was] the only way for Obama to expose just how radical the G.O.P. has become....." (my emphasis). While defending his proffered tactic Friedman firmly reasserts his belief in the substance of the President's stance on issues. "[W]e cannot just be about cutting. We also need to be investing in the sources of our greatness: infrastructure, education, immigration and government-funded research. Real conservatives would understand thatt you cannot just shred the New Deal social safety nets, which are precisely what enable the public to tolerate freewheeling capitalism, with its brutal ups and downs." So, despite his tactic not being employed as he would like it he keeps the faith. "My fading hope is that this is Obama’s opening bid and enough Republicans will come to their senses and engage him again in a Grand Bargain. My fear is that both parties have just started their 2012 campaigns." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/opinion/friedman-are-we-going-to-roll-up-our-sleeves-or-limp-on.html?src=me&ref=general

And while Friedman acknowledges the validity of the President's proposals for "jobs," Brooks tearfully finds it "a campaign marker, not a jobs bill." Again, my friend, you see what you want in reading this as "subdued towel-tossing." Brooks decries the tactics or "governing style," as he puts it , and not the substance of the President's policies. "The White House has clearly decided that in a town of intransigent Republicans and mean ideologues, it has to be mean and intransigent too.... So the White House has moved away from the Reasonable Man approach or the centrist Clinton approach....The White House has decided to wage the campaign as fighting liberals. I guess I understand the choice, but I still believe in the governing style Obama talked about in 2008. I may be the last one." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/opinion/brooks-obama-rejects-obamaism.html?src=me&ref=general

He is not. Brooks believes in what the President would be if there existed a political arena in which there could be a true contest of ideas and issues. I do as well. Brooks wants, as most intellectually engaged willing to subdue ideology, a grand solution that will be embraced joyously by a waiting populace. It ain't going to happen. Even in the best of political worlds such a construct would and should require congressional deliberation toward consensus.

But, what alternatives are available with a Congress intransigent on the most rational solutions to just keep the government functioning to protect its citizens. In this crucible, only surrender or confrontation will engage the masses. If our nation was composed of citizens who were all educated and engaged in the important issues of our time such as "serious tax reform and entitlement reform," rational political discourse could result in decisions for the common good. The engaged citizenry today are a combination of those unemployed and struggling, those wanting a Leviathan premised on faith and doctrine, the established holders and direct beneficiaries of capital, and assorted special interest (conservative and progressive) groups. Neither individually nor collectively do they speak for or represent the majority of citizens. Most will not comprehend (look at medical reform) nor react politically to an ultimate solution that necessarily will project events well into and beyond their personal future.

The greater number of citizens, unfortunately, will engage politically as they do socially with a discourse of confrontation on simple issues easily understood and fostered. The Right having recognized this has engaged a defined "ideology" as boogieman: "socialism." The Right has selectively challenged segments of the working class to eliminate unions. The Right has skirmished on the brink of a Class War. "The White House" seeks to survive and continue. Regrettably, the Right has chosen the battlefield on low ground. Attempts by the White House and moderate/rational Republicans to maneuver off this ground have failed so the "silent majority" must be recruited and the "engaged" engaged where they are found.

Resilience in Place of Fear

NEW YORK --- After a decade of war with al-Qaida the potential for another devastating terrorist assault "remains very real," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday following a somber visit to ground zero of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

It seems clear that the Secretary of Defense has an obligation to promote the military successes and responsibilities in preparing for the inevitable and imminent budget conflicts in Congress. However, it is imperative in that effort that he not bolster the fear-mongering that unnecessarily pervades national discourse. Reasoned debate in Washington among politicians and implementers of policy is essential. However, there is an obligation among them to present a balanced perspective to citizens. Prof. Zelikow, former Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, summarized what Americans should be brought to understand and believe in, is our "resilience" as individuals, families and a nation. Of course, vigilance is imperative but, in the context of our successes, particularly against al-Qaida, and our established counter structures, terrorism need not be on the Top Ten list of a citizen's personal concerns. So "Cool it." Mr. SecDef.

A Complete Footnote

Viet Nam combat veterans brought up Jane Fonda during discussion. Many, after forty years, still held strong feelings of contempt for her while there was expression of the need to "let go" and put her and the war behind us. Jane Fonda should never become irrelevant in our memories or in the history of the war and the American culture that has come to define "that time." By her choice of actions back then she established herself in a role that must continue to define her. Her chosen images back then created strong feelings among the grunts who had fought and were fighting in Viet Nam. Don't dare to suggest that she has cleansed herself through the passage of time or a carefully worded "my bad." To "let go" is to pardon the unpardonable. Each veteran has the ability and right to forgive. But, her niche in this history must remain for future generations to judge as well. If, whenever and however small the footnote may be written, it should include the strength of the disdain of American veterans. Possibly, future conduct will be forestalled by an appreciation for the seriousness of its affect.

U.S. Sovereign Credit Downgrade

Standard & Poors (S&P) has downgraded the US "long term sovereign credit rating" to AA+; t,he first downgrade in United States history. Now, one may challenge the capacity of S&P to render any valid judgment given their part in the last economic debacle or challenge on the numbers. As I expressed earlier, the perception and reality of the rhetoric from the Republican Right, which created the unnecessary fight over the debt ceiling, built a debt "situation" into political stagnation and economic chaos. Banks, businesses (small and large), pensioners, foreign markets, citizens (red and blue) and our own ratings agencies became the Henny Pennys, and Goosey Loosies, taking in the T-bag carrying Chicken Little rants that the "sky was falling" on the United States. Again, we, the mere farm animals, had better wake up before Foxey Loxey (A Bachman, Perry, Palin, Cain, or ....) takes control.

S&P says "too little, too late" in the budget agreement numbers but the broader fundamental issue as stated by S&P is that:

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.


Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon."

http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

I say again that the Republican Party, as presently constituted and directed, is a greater threat to our democracy and constitutional structure than the Communist Party of the United States" ever attained.

Democrats: Wrong Again.

The "balance" within the Debt Ceiling agreement calls for matching reductions in military spending and entitlements programs to "kick-in" automatically if the bipartisan congressional panel fails to agree to alternative cuts totaling $1.2 trillion. Each, defense and entitlements, would then face $600 billion reductions over 10 years.

Unchallenged news reports place the Democrat leadership as the initiators of military spending as a counter-weight to Republican ideological and fiscal imperatives within the panel agenda. After all, it is suggested, Democrats hold that military spending is a "Republican" political paradigm. Democrat logic then sees a Republican acquiescence to Democrat initiatives to protect military spending in the congressional panel discussions. To be sure, elements of the Democrat base are against military spending, some at any level, and against the two ongoing wars while Republicans are generally seen as bulls in military spending.

Assume for the moment (for it would have no validity beyond this single moment) that the panel talks are productive and agreements are reached in rational compromise. Now, coming back to reality, let's assume that the Republicans refuse any discussion of revenue increase and the Democrats hold firm (this time) to their demand for a balanced reduction/revenue outcome. In either of these events the Democrats are going to have to face a strong political argument from the Republicans stemming from their own (Democrat) construct of this military/entitlements balance.

Cuts to the military are always styled as cuts to the "defense" budget. We are presently engaged in two wars. Anonymous "senior Pentagon officials" already warn of dire consequence if the "kick-in" occurs. Republicans may reasonably and with some validity argue in the coming months that the Democrats are willing to put the entrenched, "undeserved" entitlements of a few before the defense of this country while jeopardizing the lives of men and women in the front lines. Whatever the inflation to the Democrat base, this creature of compromise will definitely NOT play well with Independent voters. The Independents (as I) will not accept an outcome, real or gambled, detrimental to our Armed Forces, that is, to our defense.

The Democrats placement of "Defense" as the counter-weight was, at the least, short sighted while, more correctly, plain dumb. They could simply have stood on equity and principle. Leadership, in a country already demanding a balanced outcome, would have been a powerful counter-weight. Watch as it plays out.

Stupidity Agenda: FAA

Having observed the FAA failing to balance the dual and contradictory missions (promoting success of US air carriers/insuring public safety) Congress has imposed, I find it incredible that this is the field chosen for the next confrontation. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/us/03faa.html?pagewanted=1&hp “We are going to lose $1 billion in the aviation trust fund if we leave this Congress for the month of August and we don’t extend the F.A.A.”

Other news reports refer to stoppage of ongoing airport construction (jobs!) and "you betcha" if there is less inspection there will be safety problems in an industry rampant with economic shortcuts. One Department of Transportation (oversight of FAA) executive said to me a few years ago during a discussion of a national problem of defective aircraft replacement parts on commercial aircraft: "I never fly if I can avoid it." This may be the real explanation for tax breaks for corporate/executive jets!

If you have flown during this imposed break you may be entitled to a return of the amount paid for the federal tax. Could this be the Democrat's way of extending another stimulus giveaway? Or, is it a Republican ideological, gangster tactic? I know but am not saying.

Republicans! Wake Up!

As an Independent in Rep. Cantor's District and once supporter of the McCain/Palin ticket, I have been sickened and repulsed by the rhetoric on the Right and the tactics of the Republican Party since President Obama took office. Rep. Cantor, for his own political ambition and obviously generated by a flawed personality, has helped the Republican Party lead this Nation to a precipice over economic chaos.

It is particularly disheartening to read comment from those identifying themselves as Republicans expressing obvious ignorance of the facts at issue regarding the debt ceiling. This is not to say that Democrats on particular issues do not likewise follow blindly the Party line at times. But this issue is enormously important to our country and the world economic situation. The Republican Party repeating, over and over, no matter the context, question or opportunity, the same phrase "job creators," for example, or other "speaking point du jour" while deliberately avoiding accurately educating their constituents borders on reckless endangerment. Those new in Congress after pledging T-Party rhetoric, particularly had an obligation to educate themselves (they have not) and to honestly inform their constituents of the facts. That IS their responsibility in a representative democracy. That is Rep. Cantor's responsibility. There are issues for reasoned debate with the Democrats. Wake up Republicans. Or are you too scared, busy, blindly loyal, selfish or indifferent to learn the truth. If so, check your citizenship at the club door.

Amalgamated Self-Interest

It all comes down to self-interest. The Right has amalgamated the profit interests of the dehumanized corporation with the self-interest of unrestrained greed defining personal achievement for its vassals into a ideological construct disguised as a political party in a democracy. Although once it did exist in this country, there is no corresponding, challenging integrated whole from the Left. The paradigms of corporate existence and "success" have not changed. They have only expanded. The American society that underwrote by investment of wealth, sweat and brain the success of pre-Globalization, "American" corporations has been abandoned. American society must defend itself. It must amalgamate its varied self-interests toward new economic success in this country. Contrary to the fear mongering of the Right, this amalgamation from the "Left" need not and should not become the "feared Socialism." This new "Center Left" amalgam must find its identity and forcefully move politically now or it will never seed "the coming revolution." And I don't care who funds it. The self-interested corporate related funds nursed and directed the T party to gleeful success and is rashly and unjustifiably bringing our Nation to the brink of economic crises. The Right's Self-Interest is seeking a stronger platform in the 2012 elections. As one of its leaders has said, the Republican Party, the avatar of the amalgamated Right, will protect its brand at the expense of the country in order to achieve the sole objective of the defeat of President Obama.

The Debt Debacle

Republican intransigence on the issue of the debt ceiling is a national disgrace, severally stifling our economic recovery, creating instability in our international standing, and risking a dangerous level of economic chaos. The Republican refusal to moderate the supposedly "ideological" extreme is a substantial move toward increased wealth inequality, stabilization of an existing oligarchy and stagnation of economic and social progress. Their America is purely an economic unit wholly distinct from the ideals fundamental to our experiment as the first nation founded on moral principles.

Memorial Day 2011

MEMORIAL DAY 2011We each have our own thoughts and memories that provide a context to this Memorial Day weekend. All Americans share the responsibility to remember and to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms and in defense of freedom around the world. Whether lost to us in direct combat, during clandestine operations or in support of those missions, their memory must be cherished or this nation will be unworthy of their sacrifice. You will be unworthy of their sacrifice. The monuments that we erect are to stand as reminders of sacrifice and not as substitutes for personal reflection on duty, honor and appreciation.

The families who have lost a cherished son, daughter, father or mother need no reminder. We, combat veterans, need no reminder. Thoughts now of those dead in wars long past are no longer accompanied by a personal memory. Today brief media glimpses at the pain that remains with families as another American killed in Afghanistan, Iraq or some other distant place is honored and buried must provide a reminder to all Americans. The freedom we enjoy today is the legacy of the blood and sacrifice of the heroes in all our wars, past and present.

"you must reflect that it was by courage, sense of duty, and a keen feeling of honour in action that men were enabled to win all this, and that no personal failure in an enterprise could make them consent to deprive their country of their valour, but they laid it at her feet as the most glorious contribution that they could offer. For this offering of their lives made in common by them all they each of them individually received that renown which never grows old, and for a sepulchre, not so much that in which their bones have been deposited, but that noblest of shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call for its commemoration. For heroes have the whole earth for their tomb;" (Pericles 430 BCE)

The children in the photo are the sons of friends, a non-commissioned officer and his wife serving in the Army's 10th Mountain Division. The respect, innocently presented in their salute as our flag was being lowered one afternoon recently, may remind us of what values we bring to our own children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and neighbors by our deeds and our words. What have we said to our own about the meaning of Memorial Day. What have we done to show them that we remember and honor.

"However horrible the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country is the noblest development of mankind." Douglas MacArthur, 12 May, 1962, West Point, NY

Executive Power

A brief thought responding to a friend's comment: "Presidents have always used foreign affairs as an excuse to claim more executive power."

Agreed but, wouldn't you also accept that, at times, valid necessity presented more of the justification than an offer of excuse. Necessity having to be valued in the context of the then perceived "reality" where there was no reasonable choice but to grant the executive authority. Our failure has, more often than not, been the continuing acquiescence rather than the initial allowance.

A Response.

My friend, responding to my Friday the 13th comment challenged me saying that my "espousing the need for civility in one breath and then race bating and name calling in the next" was hollow commentary.

Well, I answered that I had intended merely to identify policies and ideological positions in the political arena that I find generally detestable on the present Right. I guess that I do regret having to call the proponents "Republicans."

To clarify, I reject levels of civility that constrain responses from the Democrat Party to what I have described. On the other side, the diversity within the Democrat Party fosters elements of selfishness similar to what I decried in the Republican Party and which work to destroy opportunity for the common good. As with the Right, some of the entrenched political, social and ideological cliques on the Left, though without power to control the nation, seek their own estates no matter the costs to the common good.

After receiving over the last two years blatantly racist jokes, cartoons and commentaries from many sources who each cloak themselves in conservative Republican association and observing the "birthers" driven by antagonistic disbelief that any man of mixed racial blood could be President, I conclude that racist beliefs form a portion of what has stimulated the Republican Party. I do not insinuate. I accuse.