Cheney Disses Colin Powell

A friend once told me that you need to watch out for people that could turn on you when things get rough. Dick Cheney, the former Vice President turned on former military leader, former Secretary of State, and former confidant of the White House, Colin Powell. Politically, Cheney would go to bat for Rush Limbaugh first over Colin Powell, the same Rush Limbaugh who never served in our nations military, never held a public office, and would bite the hand that feeds him if it works for his entertainment talk radio network. Um, Mr. former Vice President, you just slapped every man and woman that served in our armed forces upside the head? One has to wonder how Cheney thinks, decorated military and life long public servant versus a blow hard aleged addict of prescription drugs. Cheney still goes for the aleged drug addict?

Video Link



Need I mention that Dick Cheney never served in our nations military but condoned tactics that could be used against our own troops if torture is justified? And it was under his watch! It only takes a swipe of a pen and a signature to authorize anything in defense of America but the consequences of thinking that you are right just because you say you are is way off of the foundation of what our nation was and is built on. Thank God that nothing ever happened to President Bush where Cheney would have moved up the ladder. Cheney would have nuked all of Iraq in a heart beat even though our troops were stationed there. His logic for doing so would be for the betterment of democracy, as long as you don’t agree with his definition of it.

Walk over to this side of the aisle Colin Powell, you get a hug and a way to go for being an American that believes we have a moral obligation to humanity.

Papamoka

My thanks to Think Progress for the hat tip…

Obama Changes Position On Torture Prosecution

I should start off this post that I am a firm believer that those that endorsed torture during the Bush AKA I’m really the President Cheney administration deserve no respect or gratitude from any American citizen. We live in a land of laws, and in those laws are protections of not only our citizens but our enemies. Believing in our nation comes with a price and that price is full respect of the law that we not only pass in this nation but laws we agree to as a nation with the rest of the world. That can get complicated but Prisoners Of War, POW’s, deserve fair treatment from every nation in the world. That may first sound ridiculous but how many Vietnam POW’s do you know that faced horrible torture? Just ask John McCain while he isn’t on the campaign trail on his true feelings and thoughts on torture.

President Obama today stated that he is now open to the justice department looking into prosecuting the people that authorized torture under the guise of US Government protection of America. With limitations? Over at MSNBC they have this video with President Obama explaining his change in position when it comes to prosecuting anyone involved with torture…

Video Link

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Freedom comes with a price, and that price is an understanding of what is right and what is wrong. It’s called the law of the land. In respect to President Bush and what part he and his co-horts played in this torture debate, I have to honestly think they deserve a full Presidential pardon from President Obama. President Bush swore to respect and defend America as best he could and that is what he did. He dropped the ball on respecting America but he did in fact defend America to the best of his sometimes incompetent abilities. How Bush defended America after 9/11 is up to historians to decide and not for lawyers, prosecutors, and courts to decide. An American President swears to defend America first above all else, how he or eventually she does that is for them to decide. I'm pretty sure that this Liberal is extemely controversial on this issue in asking for a pardon for President Bush. Screw Cheney though!

As for Dick Cheney, former Vice President, all of his talk on the networks is turning the tide of many moderates that used to be in the Republican Party against the Republican Party. People that have sons and daughters in the military want to know that if our government endorses torture, which Cheney denied originally, will not have their sons and daughters tortured. Parents want to know for sure that our sons and daughters will not face the same forms of torture today or in the future if their children serve proudly in America’s military. Any argument Cheney gives defending torture is an argument that has no weight to it. Go back to your hidey hole in Wyoming Dick and shut the hell up! America has grown up since the days of we must live in fear forever after 9/11. It just isn’t in our blood to do so.

The world is a much smaller place than it used to be and we need to work with our friends in the world to make it a better place to live, if not just for today but for decades to come.

Papamoka

Is the Banking Crisis Over

Is it possible that the actions of not just only President Obama but those of former President Bush have stemmed the tide of the banking crisis? Scanning the news today it was refreshing to see that Citigroup doesn’t think it will need anymore cash infusion from the government and is looking forward to running in the black from this point forward. Over at Reuters they have this to say from CEO Richard Parsons of Citigroup..

By John Poirier and Diane Bartz
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Citigroup Inc Chairman Richard Parsons said on Thursday that the bank does not need any more capital injections from the government and expressed confidence that Citi would remain in private hands.

Asked in an interview with Reuters whether Citigroup needed additional government capital injections, Parsons said: "No, I think actually, particularly with the latest conversion... Citi is actually one of the better capitalized banks in the world." - Reuters

Then I look over at Bank of America and they are good to go too! They don’t need no stinking money either. Could this crisis be turning a corner where the big fish will now feed on all the little fish in the banking industry? Bloomberg is reporting that the bank has been profitable since the beginning of the year and has this report…

Bank of America Expects to Post Full-Year 2009 Profit
By Christopher Condon and Sree Vidya Bhaktavatsalam

March 12 (Bloomberg) -- Bank of America Corp., the biggest U.S. bank, expects to make money for the full year after posting a profit for January and February, Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis said.

“We have been profitable for the first two months of the year,” Lewis told reporters after a speech to the Boston College Chief Executives’ Club in Boston today. “We expect to be profitable” in 2009. In his speech, Lewis said the bank may earn $50 billion this year, measured before taxes and provisions, and the company won’t need more federal aid. - Bloomberg

Word to the wise to those of you with some free cash to invest, you might want to look at both of these companies as part of your near future investments. Citi closed at $1.67 today and that price has nowhere to go but up in my honest opinion. Bank of America closed at $5.85 per share today. Or could it be that the strong arm of the Obama administration is scaring the pants off of the big banks with their hands out? Or could it be that they (big banks) don't want the endless gravy trough at the top to end with government intervention? I'm leaning towards a little of both, yes they can turn things around on their own and no they don't want the Federal Reserve telling them how much they can skim off the top in bonuses and mega salaries. Was there truly a banking crisis at all or was it a free for all at the taxpayers expense? Things that make you go hmmm…

One has to look at the stock market as a gambling den, so much money goes in and the same amount of money comes out. It is a matter of perspective of who lost and who won at the end of the day. If $500 bucks went into the poker game, then $500 bucks came out. It's all in who won the game that day or for that matter that year. Belly up to the bar boys and girls, Citigroup and Bank of America are back in play.

Papamoka

Is Bush Thinking He is Harry Truman

I think I need to make it loud and clear that George Bush is not Harry Truman. Harry Truman let the buck stop at his desk. He road the waste in government as a Democrat and went after people and companies that tried screwing over the American people in the federal budget. George Bush could not pass all the bucks forward fast enough as President and he was not and will not ever be looked at as a Harry Truman President. Oil companies not excepted, George Bush has never met a military contractor as well that he didn’t like and Haliburton was his favorite son that just happened to move it’s headquarters from his own home state of Texas to Dubai in the Middle East to escape any future prosecution for war profiteering. That was convenient was it not?

President Bush is distancing himself in the closing weeks of his administration from the war on terror or should I say distancing his excuses for it. Granted, the attack on 9/11 happened but the way that it was dealt with was dead wrong. Going to war in Afghanistan was justified because that was where Osama Bin Laden based his attack from and that government justified it as righteous. Iraq however was a personal debt that George Bush owed to Sadam Hussein and his father. Sadam threatened to kill his father for the Gulf War. George Bush pulled a gang land vendetta pay back with the most powerful military in the world for personal reasons. The cost of that personal war on terror is more than all the lives lost on 9/11.

George Bush can not walk out of the office of President lily white and clean and he will more or less not even blink an eye on the pardons he is going to dole out like candy to kids attending a parade. The handfuls of pardons will go out loud and clear to his political base and they are frankly demanding them. There is not one crime committed on his behalf that will not be pardoned. Wire tapping, torture, market manipulation, and just about anything that was good for the rich and bad for the middle and lower class. His record shows how he really feels about veterans and how they are only of use to him if they are actually fighting in the field. After that, those veterans more or less have to go fend for themselves. His backing of the VA is all you need to see how hollow his defense of veterans has been.

How the folks on the right side of the political aisle think that George Bush was a Godsend to America I will never understand. Somehow, President Bush thinks he has a firm record to stand on but from my perspective I see him about to stand on the quicksand of history. And it may take three or more Democrat administrations in the office of President to fix all the damage he has done to the Constitution and common law in the United States.

Over at The Weekly Standard they have this thought on whom President Bush should pardon in his last days in office…

One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning--and should at least be vociferously praising--everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it. - The Weekly Standard

I’m thinking that President Bush is going to chuck America the finger one last time on his last day in office with ridiculous pardons that will more or less cripple the Justice Department from investigating the actual crimes he and his Vice President committed. What was good for Bush is off limits to prosecute and the President Elect is left holding his luggage just because Bush and Cheney left him the baggage. History in tens of years from now will show us all how much corruption and manipulation has taken place under President Bush. Only then will he go down in the disgrace he rightfully deserves.

George Bush is leaving the White House with a legacy of ignorance and intolerance for all other nations in the world. He has crippled the diplomatic corps of the United States that has been built up from one President to another over decades and hundreds of years. President Elect Obama has his work cut out for him and the simplest path is to simply say that “We” are not George Bush.

Hold your head up high as an American, the political waters are going to get ugly with facts over the next decade as real reporters talk about the deception filled Bush administration. The truth always surfaces no matter how much it is held under the waters of politics and government.

Papamoka

Just another SteveO graphic from Bring It On that I loved...

You have to admit that if you loved George W. Bush and the last eight years of screw you politics against the middle and lower classes, McCain is no longer the Maverick of yesterday but the King of tomorow if elected President of this country.

Please leave your Constitutional rights at the door as you enter any government facility and you will be frisked to make sure that you are no longer holding any civil rights. Please present four forms of identity as an American citizen or press one for another language choice. Thank you for being an obedient American citizen.

Papamoka

Bush Embarrassment Continues at G8

George W. Bush will go down as the biggest mistake American voters ever made in the worlds opinion of America. He attends meetings on behalf of the American people and just does not care what opinion or controversy he conveys. He is a walking time bomb and the world now knows that he just does not care what people think simply because he has a King mentality. Just a memo to the world, we in America know he is an idiot, we are stuck with him till January so please excuse us while we reinvent and elect our nations leader into something that resembles an actual person that can be a world leader.

Over at the Telegraph in Great Britain they have this to say on his exit strategy of the G8...

The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

Mr Bush, whose second and final term as President ends at the end of the year, then left the meeting at the Windsor Hotel in Hokkaido where the leaders of the world's richest nations had been discussing new targets to cut carbon emissions. - Telegraph.co.uk

Is President Bush nuts or what? Thanks for having me here at your neat summit but screw you all? Grub was good, didn’t understand a word any of ya said, but I’m the King of the United States of America so go screw yourselves! Bush is full of contempt for everyone in the world and there is nothing that he will do to put America first in diplomacy. Dare I wonder if his low twenty percent approval rating at home could sink even lower into the teens?

George Bush does not have a freaking clue as to world politics and his actions proves it out loud every time he opens his mouth without a pre prepared speech. This man has no wing man and his mind is not in the room whenever he speaks on his own. If he is capable of saying something this stupid then what makes you think he has ever done anything right in his eight years in the office of President?

And Senator John McCain wants to follow his lead? That is a joke in and of itself. We don’t need four more years of the naked King as is told in the fairy tail. America needs a real leader and it isn’t in the works over at the right side of the isle.

Papamoka

Technorati Tags:
G8, World leaders, Summit on the environment, World Politics, Bush, President Bush, Bush gaffes, Worlds largest polluter, Reasons to vote Democrat, American Leaders, Presidential Travels, Bush, Politics, Republican politics, Stupid Quotes from Bush, Out of touch politics, Telegraph UK, Robert Winnett

Iraq to America, Go Away!

While all the folks on the political right side of the isle are selling one hundred years in Iraq the Prime Minister in cahoots with the Bush Administration is asking us to leave. Which raises the question if they can stand on their own, ride that bicycle without the training wheels and be self sufficient? Forget all the hyperbole of everything we need to fear by all the right wing pundits and think about what the message of the Bush administration is. Iraq should be free. Doesn’t freedom mean not having foreign troops on your soil too?

Over at the Washington Post they have this to say on Maliki’s plea for freedom…

Iraq's Maliki Suggests Setting Timetable for U.S. Withdrawal

U.S. Has Consistently Opposed Establishing Timeline for Troop Drawdown

By Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 7, 2008; 1:22 PM

BAGHDAD, July 7 -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has for the first time suggested establishing a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, a step that the Bush administration has long opposed.

Maliki floated the idea on Monday during a visit to the United Arab Emirates, where he spoke with Arab ambassadors about a security pact being negotiated to determine the future role of U.S. troops in Iraq. The agreement would replace a U.N. mandate authorizing the presence of the troops, which is set to expire Dec. 31.

Maliki said that Iraq has proposed a short-term memorandum of understanding with the United States instead of trying to forge a longer term pact on an issue that has spawned opposition across Iraq's political divides.

"The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal," Maliki said, according to a statement released Monday by his office that did not specify how long a period a memorandum would cover. "In all cases, the basis for any agreement will be respect for the full sovereignty of Iraq." - Washington Post

This does not play well into the McCain for President spin where we need to be in Iraq for another hundred years. It certainly does not play well in the Bush nation building play book either. How the hell is he going to attack Iran if our troops are not already in the neighborhood? Damn it! This messes up the whole Middle East crisis.

Forget the Middle East, what about all the layoffs from all the special interest groups feeding at the trough of the Bush/Cheney mega war O profit machine? Where in hell are they supposed to find jobs paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for serving hot dogs to our troops on Independence Day? This is a crisis of biblical terms when it comes to the GOP!

President Bush is probably trying to find a bottle of hundred proof booze as Dick Cheney is loading his shot gun and booking a trip to Baghdad for a hunting trip, wink, wink. This was not part of the nation building plan. This is not a good thing when Johnny wannabe McCain is supposed to fill Junior Bush's shoes.

Papamoka

It's Not Often We Get To Relive History: Bush Out-Hoovers Coolidge

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

By 1932 the economy was so bad that a children's rhyme came about that mentioned then President Hoover and his Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon:

Mellon drove the engine,
Hoover rang the bell,
Wall St. blew the whistle,
and the country went to hell.

From the mouth of babes, as they say....it condenses into a short poem the feelings and beliefs at the time. Herbert Hoover got stuck with the policies of Calvin Coolidge, yet President Hoover was a captive of what John Kenneth Galbraith later described as "the conventional wisdom."

The Franklin Roosevelt administration came into office at a time when American business was looking for someone to save them from themselves. What Roosevelt did certainly alleviated many of the harshest aspects of the Depression, but never cured it. But at least he tried which is more than can be said for his predecessors. One good, and lasting side of FDR's time was the imposition of some common-sense regulation on American finance.

Since the 1970's, many of those regulations were removed by Congress, sometimes at the behest of the president in office. It all looked great, "unleashing the shackles" from business. The first inkling of the wisdom of this was the mortgage crisis of the late 1980's. We were returning to the "conventional wisdom" with a vengeance. Several years ago Congress passed, and President Bush gleefully signed something called the consumer protection act. I love their sense of humor. That law was written by, and for, credit card companies. It was to address the problem of the irresponsible behavior of individuals who ran up credit card debt and then declared bankruptcy. Keep that logic in mind.

Last Friday, President Bush gave a speech at The Economic Club of New York. You can't get more grassroots than that; a roomfull of millionaires/billionaires filling their shorts with fear; fear of losing what they have taken risks with other peoples' money for great personal gain. In Bush Acknowledges Weakness In American Economy by Jennifer Loven (AP writer), our president regurgetated thoughts expressed 80 years ago.

NEW YORK - Trying to calm jitters about the economy, President Bush conceded on Friday that the country "obviously is going through a tough time" but expressed confidence that it will rebound. He cautioned against overreacting to fix the problems.

In a speech to The Economic Club of New York, Bush said this was not the first time the economy has been rattled and that he is certain that it will ride out its troubles. "These are uncertain times," he said.

SNIP,

The president chose American's financial center as the backdrop — and the titans of finance and commerce as the audience — for his attempts to calm nerves from Wall Street to Main Street.

The Economic Club of New York is an exclusive, wealthy, largely homogenous group of top executives. Speaking before the gathering had Bush somewhat literally preaching to the choir — the 101-year-old group's new chairman is Glen Hubbard, the first head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers for Bush.

SNIP,

His main message, aside from optimism, stuck to Republican economic orthodoxy: warning repeatedly against too much government intervention.

For instance, while insisting his administration has an "active plan" to deal with the problems, Bush said he opposed several measures pending on Capitol Hill. They included proposals to allocate $400 billion to purchase abandoned and foreclosed homes, to change the bankruptcy code to allow judges to adjust mortgage rates, and to artificially prop up home prices.

"It's important not to overcorrect, because when you overcorrect, you end up in a ditch," Bush said. "It's important to be steady."

He said his administration would address the crisis "in a way that respects the ingenuity of the American people, that bolsters the entrepreneurial spirit and ensures that when we make it through this rough patch, that the driving will be smooth."

President Bush went on to lament Democrats' recalcitrance on approving more of those "free trade" deals that have done so much for American multinational corporations.

I love the bit where he emphasizes the growth of productivity was one of the strengths of the economy. That is a half-truth. Presidents Coolidge and Hoove also bragged about the growth of productivity. What all fail to realize is that increased productivity is useless if the wages do not rise in accordance with them.

To my dying day I will be a strong proponent of capitalism. It isn't pretty, but it creates wealth; no other system does. Greed is not good, but it's a much better catalyst in wealth creation, however it is distributed. That is the role of government to some degree; to curb the excesses of unfettered capitalism.

Two days after President Bush's speech in New York, it was announced that the Federal Reserve was loosening credit (again) for business. And, that it was involved in pulling Bear Stearns bacon out of the fire (by having it sold to J.P. Morgan for pennies on the dollar).

Some argued that Bear Stearns, an investment bank that screwed the pooch with subprime mortage notes, should go under...to deal with the consequences of its unwise actions. You know, like those individuals who got lectured vehemently several years ago when those bankruptcy laws were tightened.

But, to the Bush administration....like the Coolidge and Hoover administrations....the worth of one bank is much greater than millions of individuals. Suddenly on Wall Street we don't hear the usual cries of "rugged individualism." Of course not; such a notion is silenced in times like these.

Simply put, if our economy is a ship, if it is taking on water, the first thing the captain is going to do is ensure the lifeboats are filled with the first class passengers FIRST.

The wealthy elites are, to borrow from Neil Young, the silver seeds of a grandiose future.

George Carlin was once asked if he thought we had a dope problem in America.

"Sure,' he said, " I think we have too many dopes."
*****************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

HILLARY LOVES YOU

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Following this presidential race can have adverse effects on one's appetite. That might be good; perhaps by November I'll have shrunk to the weight the doctors say I should be. Thing is, I choose to be stupid and follow the path of personal health self-destruction. While not a consumer of alcohol or drugs, I do adhere to Oscar Wilde's quote that "I can resist anything but temptation."

So imagine my consternation when I read this piece in the NEW YORKER, THE IRON LADY by Ryan LIzza. True, the article is certainly not complimentary of Senator Clinton, but one part sticks out there all by itself. It was uttered by Senator Clinton during an "economic summit" during the campaign for the Ohio primary. It took place in Zanesville.

It was as if the sheer display of iron-pantsed discussion would further underscore her insistent theme: the hollowness of Obama’s charisma. When one speaker offered encomiums to Clinton rather than economic prescriptions, she gently reprimanded her, saying, “We’re going to put a moratorium on compliments.” Then, with the bonhomie of a high-school health teacher, she turned the conversation back toward government programs to help people “quit smoking, to get more exercise, to eat right, to take their vitamins.”

Is Ryan Lizza making this up? The comment is apparently not "newsworthy" because it doesn't have "substance." In the modern media glossary, "substance" is defined as that which can cause the greatest amount of childish interest within the political sandbox. It should be looked at further, and since the big boys and girls won't touch it, I will.

Many moons ago I read Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." 19th century English can be a handful to read, and Thoreau's prose adds to the challenge. But, what I gathered from his writing is that the individual is paramount. That is the acme of Western thinking. The government, or state, is secondary to the individual. In fact, our Constitution goes to some lengths in the Bill of Rights to expressly underline that notion.

When the state becomes the oppressor instead of the protector, then the individual has a choice: either submit or not. Submission is always less painful; at least in the short term. However, over time individuality will seek to assert itself no matter what the state says. What Thoreau wrote was studied by Gandhi and Martin Luther King. All three men were philosophers, pains in the backside to those who prefer people not to think. Thinking is painful, after all, and the struggle to maintain individuality in a politically correct word is an agony.

When Franklin Roosevelt died in 1945, a contemporary writer gave a good description of FDR as a leader. He was America's bus driver. With a grin and his cigarett holder at a jaunty angle, Roosevelt steered the country down some dangerous road and heart-stopping curves. Sometimes it was scary, but everyone knew that while he was in the driver's seat, he never stopped listening to the passengers.

That is apt, because we, the passengers on the national bus, are the sovereigns of this republic. Plain, simple citizens are the ultimate rulers of the nation. The past seven years there hasn't been a bus; we've had a spoiled brat in a soapbox derby car (that his daddy built) rolling downhill. And we've been expected to keep up with him while dragging bags of cement behind us.

And now....well, it looks like one candidate (or possibly all three right now) foresees her role as a herder; someone to herd those wayward souls who just don't get it. What I don't get is why the power of government has to be used to further a collective goal at the expense of the individual. The context within which I am speaking relates to personal behavior only. If the state declares that an individual's right to abortion, or sexual preferences, or religious preferences. THAT I can understand, as it is in the direction of government staying out of an individual's decisions. It does not matter whether I personally agree or not; the key point is that the individual is, again, to be protected by the state. No matter how stupid they are.

But smoking? Exercise? Eating habits? Vitamins? If this is the epitome of 220 years of a constitutional republic, then it is sad and disheartening.

We need another bus driver. And there ain't no room on the bus for a throne.
***********************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Will 2008 Be The Year The Democratic Party Is Assassinated?

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Within my own lifetime I've lived through the assassinations (or attempted assassinations) of JFK, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan. All of them were so stupid; so pointless. Where the attempts succeeded history was altered, and not for the better. People think of Lee Harvey Oswald of killing Kennedy. But he also gave us Lyndon Johnson in the White House.

Johnson was a terrible president, yet historians seem to concentrate on what a great politician he was. The same is true of Bill Clinton; he knows how to politic but I don't think history is going to be too kind to his acts as president. Don't even think about comparing Mr. Clinton to Mr. Bush.....ANY president looks good, except maybe James Buchanan.

As sad and pointless an assassination of an individual is, the same act carried out against something greater than an individual is even worse. To be fair, it might be said that with the best of intentions the Bush administration has done a pretty good job of assassinating the Constitution.

After the March 4th voting, whereby Senator Hillary Clinton won Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, the question is being asked by many just how far the Clinton campaign is going to go. The "math" is clear in that neither Obama nor Clinton will have the delegates to win the nomination before the party convention in Denver. Obama can rightfully claim that he has an insurmountable lead.

The advantage Obama now has is this: while he may be human and not keep his promises, he represents a form of hope. That is, hope that we can finally crawl away from the corporate forces that have been turning the nation into a giant banana republic. Senator Clinton's handicap is her being a reminder of her husband's presidency, which was not exactly an arch-enemy of greed and corruption.

The real rub for the Democrats is do they proceed with a vision or accept the blandness of sameness? The Clinton campaign will not allow Barack Obama to continue to offer hope. Said hope must be dampened down or preferably destroyed.

In so doing, Hillary Clinton will win a nomination and lose any ability to go anywhere but backwards. It is admirable for anyone to follow the advice of Dylan Thomas and not go gently into that good night. But, what works for an individual does not translate into a group. Senator Clinton may or may not be that likable a person. That is not relevant. Franklin Roosevelt was not really a very likable person; he was an enigma to just about everyone around him. But he was a great president.

There comes a point where someone in Senator Cinton's shoes must ask herself if the goal is worth the cost. This year there is a good chance for a Democrat to win the White House. But it would be foolish to assume it's there for the taking. Lots of things can happen.

One thing that should NOT be happening is heaping dirt on an opponent as if he were a Republican in a general election. Worse, using LBJ-style tactics to convolute a convention would be fatal in many aspects. The outcome of the Democratic convention could hand the election to John McCain on a silver platter.

The next president is going to need one attribute more than any other: the ability to lead the American people. FDR did it, as did JFK and Ronald Reagan. Doesn't matter whether you agree with their policies, it's the fact that one individual can inspire people to draw from within themselves that which they didn't think was there any more.
*****************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

The REAL Dirt On Barack Hussein Obama

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Let's just get this over with. Political campaigns are filled with the most childish innuendo...like knocking someone to the ground while batting eye lashes and giggling. It's not exactly straightforward. And so, having gleaned some of the aspirsions cast against Senator Obama, I thought it prudent to just list them all. That way there is no more guessing, no more sleight of hand.

Here is the list. Hopefully you will find it complete. However, I understand much more will be revealed if Sen. Obama continues to capture the attention of the American people.:

1. OBAMA CHOSE HIS NAME AT BIRTH!

This may be hard to believe, but if you don't, just ask Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. They KNOW what they're talking about. As baby Obama left his mother's womb, his first words were, "I want to have Hussein as a middle name!"

2. OBAMA DEMANDED TO BE MUSLIM AT BIRTH, TOO!!

It is a little known fact that right after baby Obama demanded Hussein as his middle name, he also specified that he be raised as a Muslim.

3. OBAMA RUINED HIS FAMILY LIFE AND IS A CONTROL FREAK

This allegation is obvious due to the fact that at age 3 or 4, young Obama kicked his father out of the house and forced his mother to move to Tanzania, or Indonesia, or someplace where weird people live. People who use names like "Barack" and stuff like that.

4. He drinks water from PLASTIC BOTTLES!!

5. He has hugged women WHO ARE NOT HIS WIFE!

6. He used to SMOKE CIGARETTES!!!

7. He has recited the pledge of allegience ..... AND HE DIDN'T EVEN WRITE IT!!

8. He is a LIBERAL who believes that the Constitution ACTUALLY MEANS SOMETHING!

9. He doesn't put shopping carts back where they belong EVEN IF THERE IS A CART CORRAL NEARBY!

10. He has refused to GO QUAIL HUNTING WITH VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY!!

Thank God we at least have another 11 months of a God-fearing, pious man in the White House who is not intimidated by terrorists (whether they be foreign or domestic critics), due process of law, common sense, or any interference with the Presidential Sceptre by some dead crackpots having written a bunch of luney ideas on a scrap of paper and calling it a Constitution.

This nation doesn't need some egghead like Barack Obama as president. No, we need someone with the stalwart dedication to his goals like President Bush, no matter how deranged they may be. We need a fighter, or at least someone willing to let someone else fight for him.

America deserves order; it deserves protection from itself whenever it goes off on one of these wild tangents involving "representative government" and other such nonsense.

Now that you know the truth, the half-truth, and nothing approaching the truth.....you are better equipped to deal with the election process.

It's the least I can do.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com
***************************
This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

*****The Chicago Sun Times has picked up this post...

Back To The Future: The Economic World Of Hunter-Gatherers

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

The story of human social evolution goes roughly as follows: for eons people were hunter-gatherers, collecting food while moving from place to place. Such a life was VERY in tune with nature, resulting in very short life spans. Nature, after all, is not that friendly.

Then people discovered they could grow their food in one place. This was called farming. This method lasted to modern times, although in a very mechanical and corporate form.

The industrial revolution, starting in the 19th century, led more and more people to forsake farming for an urban existence. This also created a complex co-dependency between industry and those who worked in them.

Today in Bloomberg.com, Rich Karlgaard has this piece, THE DEEPER ROOTS OF ECONOMIC ANXIETY. I highly recommend the article, as well as the comments left by readers. They are quite revealing.

The U.S. economy is in better shape than the pundits, polls and press say it is. I don’t believe America is in a recession now. I don’t think one is coming. After eight months of anxiety and stock market turbulence, if the bad event hasn’t happened by now, I doubt it will happen at all.

The Fed is on the case. Bargain hunters like Warren Buffett are moving in, signaling a bottom. Small business is curiously robust despite the credit crunch. Employment is strong. Every commercial flight I’ve taken this year has been oversold.

Much as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would like us to believe 2008 is a trap door to the 1930s, they’re wrong.

So, there IS no recession, there is not GOING to be a recession, and all it takes is one man...Warren Buffet...to signal the bottom of something that isn't happening. Unless, of course, one considers Wall Street as the American economy. With all due respect, rather than Senators Clinton and Obama wanting us to believe 2008 is a trapdoor to the 1930's, it could also be said that Mr. Karlgaard's words could have been written by Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover. In the economic funhouse that set up its tent in the 1970's, lip service is paid to the vast pool of unwashed consumers. The REAL decisions; the true engine of the economy, are those of the "investing class" who are better-educated, and therefore wiser, than a bunch of chocolate cherry-chomping chumps watching TV.

Cheap production technology combined with vast pools of talent, capital and consumers around the world guarantee a world of “extreme competition” (to borrow a McKinsey phrase) and ever-accelerating business-model evolution. What could slow it down? Nothing I see. Not even war.

What goes for companies goes for careers. Your career and mine can be disrupted more easily than before. The best personal career strategy is to assume that our jobs will be disrupted. Everyone needs a Plan B.

If you and I face up to these facts and trends and likelihoods, the world will look scary but thrilling, and full of opportunity, too. If we cover our eyes or imagine that politicians can protect us from change, the world will look scary, period.

As my MIT Sloan School host on Wednesday, Howard Anderson, likes to say: Welcome to a world where you will eat well or sleep well, but not both.

Question for the day: Economic populists such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton call for "change," yet ironically claim they can protect Americans from change. In a world where ideas and capital can move anywhere in the world at the speed of light and flock to cheap production technology and talent, what protections against the future can politicians give us?

If one is to accept the premise that this "new" economic mold is to be unquestionably adapted to, there lies a problem right on the surface. Hunter-gatherer mentality requires cooperation, whereas capitalism requires competition. As Herbert Hoover liked to say, "A man who builds a factory builds a temple. And the man who works there, worships there." Certain forms of capitalism require slavish devotion from labor. And slavish devotion TO the concept that all taxation is evil; that spending is good as long as it's not paid for, and acknowledgment that certain well-educated experts know all the pitfalls of capitalism. Of which there are none, of course.

It is amusing to hear the phrase "creative destruction" in the context of economic activity. If such were applied equally across the board it might make sense. The problem is, some destruction and creativity is more equal than others.

As regards Mr. Karlgaard's Question of The Day, economic populist is synomous with communisim to the investing class. There is great offense taken at "class warfare," even if it's been going on forever and it doesn't take an Einstein to know who has been winning. Senators Clinton and Obama offer some form of change....their policies do not differ all that much. However, they DO differ from the status quo, which as we all know is Latin for "the mess we're in." The protections that government can give us against rampant unchecked corporate supremacy is the only hope the 95% of the population have for a future that MIGHT be brighter.

Welcome to a world where you will eat well or sleep well, but not both. This is a credo for hunter-gatherers. There is no stability, only uncertainty. In a Sim-City economic theory bubble it sounds so exciting, so dashing. It prompts me to ask why some people get so incensed at "big government" (which they should) but bow to illusory "market forces" when it comes to big corporations. At least with big government you have SOME rights as a human being.

I believe that this nation cannot withstand another four years of Bush economics (a contradiction in terms anyway). Should a Democrat sit in the Oval Office with the same fealty to large corporate donors then we're confronted with the choice this November between a moderate Republican and a moderate Republican.

In 1942 a Japanese general warned that they were suffering from "victory disease." Everything was going too smoothly; every goal was met and all opposition crushed. Such can be said for dedicated adherents to the status quo.

As regards making a choice between eating or sleeping, it's best to be reminded of an old saying, "The castle is safe as long as the cottage is happy."
*************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com
*************************
This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

So, The General Election Is Going To Be About The "War On Terror?"

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Mitt Romney is out. John McCain is now the presumptive candidate for the presidency representing the Republican Party. And, as is natural, everyone will be playing kissy-kissy in the name of party unity. One thing that will help bring that about is to define what the general election is all about.

Governor Romney almost bowed out gracefully. By tossing in the notion that his continued candidacy might impair the "war on terror" he put forth a warning that Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama would "surrender" to the terrorists. Sen. McCain followed suit with similar observations.

The gist of this new drumbeat is that we cannot afford to "lose" Iraq. Like we "lost" China in 1949. If only we had.....what? It might be fair to say that there are those circumstances where the United States doesn't own anything to "lose" in the first place. Call me crazy, but it is arguable that the Chinese themselves had a lot to do with what happened in China.

The "war on terror" is similar to the "war on drugs" in several ways. It has no clear goal in sight, meaning an endless supply of unquestioning loyalty to the goal, which is redefined to match current political situations. And, the first casualty in such a "war" are the very freedoms and liberties that are only revoked from the very people who pose no threat in the first place.

It makes a great cudgel, though. That is, if you have no interest in (or interest in addressing) boring things like economics, disenfranchisement of citizens, healthcare, bloated government, and so on. President Bush used the GWOT very well in 2004.

But this is 2008. Some people might question how any national struggle can be maintained when the country is going broke. Lecturing those in Michigan that their jobs aren't coming back sounds like tough love. Maybe. It also sounds like someone who really doesn't have a grasp of economics. I'll offer this one for free: if a $20-an-hour job is exported, the governments' (fed, state, & local) tax base shrinks. The individual who then lands one of those valued "associate" nametags at Walmart will do the best they can. But the taxes they pay will be much less. Also, try not to lecture such people on pulling themselves back up by their bootstraps while pulling a Congressional salary. You may as well give swimming lessons in New Orleans.

"Compassionate Conservatism" has been revealed for what is is: cynical conservatism. And that applies to the GWOT as much as to anything else. For all the hope that our venture in Afghanistan would bear permanent fruit, the debacle in Iraq has to be transformed from one of those stupid moves into part of a justified expenditure of life and treasure. It is always easy to sound tough while sending someone else's son or daughter into the fire. It's also easy to turn your back on them when they return because "we have to show fiscal discipline."

For a man who dismissed critics of his ill-fated immigration "reform" bill last year, Sen. McCain is displaying a very selective view of national security. Americans are dying every day at the hands of criminals here illegally. Enforcement of existing law would put a stop to most of it. Sen. McCain might come to an understanding that American citizens and legal residents are not xenophobes just because they want the law enforced.

However, campaigns are like a house of mirrors at a carnival. Talking points and campaign themes can be made up out of whole cloth. The key is to keep banging that drum; truth has nothing to do with elections. Not when it comes to instilling fear.

For all the talk about Mitt Romney's Mormonism; for all the talk about Mike Huckabee's Christian zeal....no one mentions the fact that the Global War on Terror has become a faith also.

What Senator McCain and Gov. Romney may discover this year is that at this stage there are not as many believers as before. Pat Buchanan believes that a President McCain will start more wars; that his administration will be an expansion of the Bush II initiatives.

We're all mortal. I know I'm going to die someday; that's a simple fact. It's much harder to accept the notion that my country may perish through neglect. To borrow from T.S. Eliot, I'd rather go out from a terrorist bang than die an economic whimper.
**********************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Playing History Scrabble To Help With The Future

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

With the presidential primaries reaching a climax on February 5th, I feel at this point that I am paddling in circles within the Sea of Insanity. At the time of writing, many candidates have withdrawn, essentially leaving four: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

The Republican race appears to be McCain's to lose. After Tuesday the pundits will start speculating on who McCain will choose as a running mate. Time will tell on that one.

The Democrats have a more interesting dynamic going on. One is the first serious woman candidate for the presidency; the other the first black American to do so. Both are very intelligent people; both have egos large enough to sustain them through the process they are now going through.

So, who would not only be the better candidate, but who would make the better president? Democrats seem split 50/50 on this right now. Sen. Obama is charismatic; he actually DOES transcend many things that heretofore have separated Americans. His problem is that he is still rather unknown on specifics. His rhetoric is wonderful; he's one of the finest public speakers I've heard in a long time. How that would translate into effectiveness as a president is obviously debatable.

Hillary Clinton has many attributes that would suit her well. She's determined, intelligent, and obviously not afraid of planting her boot in the backside of those who need a little motivation. Her being a woman with those characteristics may alienate those who prefer women who are demure and silent. I, for one, do not. Ego and aggressiveness are necessary for a chief executive. Margaret Thatcher had it in spades, and she is a lady nonetheless.

Sen. Clinton's millstone is her husband. And this is where the history scrabble comes in. Suppose that we could swap the terms of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. How would the two decades...the 90's and this one...have been different?

Here we run into a bit of a quandary. What makes the difference, the presidents or the times themselves? The 90's were to a great extent a fallow period, almost exactly spanning the fall of Soviet communism (but not communism itself) and the arrival of the Paranoid Period on 9/11/2001.

President Bush would have revelled in the 90's. Oil probably would have risen in price no matter world markets, but otherwise he would have been smack in the middle of a time that favored the conservative cycle. It's doubtful that he would have invaded that many countries, although what action he would have taken in Haiti or Afghanistan would have been more forceful than Mr. Clinton's was.

President Clinton, on the other hand, would probably have done much better in this decade. During his second term he would have been able to take advantage of the slow swing from the conservative to the liberal cycle. With all due respect, Clinton's savvy and intelligence far surpass that of George W. Bush, and his handling of many post 9/11 factors would have been much different, and more than likely better.

History might read like a story; all that happened in the past seems inevitable. Yet that is not so. History is flux; a constant change that requires adaptation by the people living it. We are not the same people we were at the time of our birth, and neither is our nation. A century from now the United States will be much more different still.

Our last two presidents were, in my opinion, the wrong people at the wrong times. THIS election is one of the most important in decades, because whoever it is must be the RIGHT person for the RIGHT time.

Sen. McCain I'll look at more carefully in the future. As for the choice between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton it's almost a toss-up. I have greater hope for Obama than Clinton. Yet all the same I've changed my mind about moving to Canada if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House.

Sen. Clinton's biggest failing is this: she has not developed her own identity. That is why Bill is a burden. For if she becomes the nominee....if she becomes the president, then it must be made clear that a Clinton II administration is politically divorced from her husband's.

If the odds favor a Democrat being our next president, then I would warn both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton of one thing:

Our best presidents made major decisions with an eye on history itself. It's a much better guidepost than polls or pundits. We, as individuals, come and go. The republic itself is sustained by wise decisions.

We've had enough bad ones lately.

Bush Throws Another Log Onto the Pyre of his "Legacy"

By Michael Linn Jones

Ever notice how a word or phrase starts to creep into the language? In listening to Rudy Giuliani endorse Sen. John McCain yesterday, I heard a phrase that has become disturbing. Even more disturbing, it passed by without comment.

Giuliani said that John McCain was the best-qualified candidate to be “the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.” Call me crazy, but I thought the Constitution specifies that the President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States.

I’ve argued for several years now that the semantic placing of the presidency with the word “commander” is a leap into the abyss of strongman rule. It is, in essence, no different than those dictatorships that exist around the world, where the people, like children, need a strong father (or mother) figure to take care of them.

So I come across this in the Boston Globe: Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act.

WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.

Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.

“Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief,” Bush said. “The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.”

SNIP,

The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.

The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration has said it does not intend to designate the compact as a “treaty,” and so will not submit it to Congress for approval. Critics are also concerned Bush might lock the United States into a deal that would make it difficult for the next president to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

Obviously I am not an expert in Constitutional law, but it confuses me when someone swears an oath to “faithfully execute the laws of the United States” but then says he’s not going to execute a law of the United States because it would interfere with his ability to faithfully execute a law of the United States. Perhaps I need to further my education, and to borrow a phrase from President Bush, Citizens does learn.

Problem is, the learning curve is sharp and irreversible. This goes way beyond George W. Bush. I have argued with supporters of Bush that this is a constitutional issue, not a political one. Yet in today’s America, the two have become one.

I also was not aware that a president is empowered to declare laws to be unconstitutional. I thought that was what the courts were for. And, that if a president disagrees with a law passed by both chambers of Congress, he or she is granted a veto by the constitution.

This particular signing statement is bogus, and one doesn’t need a law degree to see why. In the statement President Bush says that he needs the latitude he demands in order to “protect national security.” There are laws in existence…been there for decades…that require a careful monitoring of who enters the United States. Yet in over seven years Bush has ignored those laws because they conflict with an agenda that he has never really spelled out.

What IS clear is that in less than one year a new president will be in office, inheriting all of the expansion of executive power vacuumed up by George W. Bush.

Is is said that we “are a nation of laws, not men.”

George W. Bush’s legacy will be proof that the opposite is true.

Originally posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Bush Pre-emptive State of the Union

Precedent Bush (misspelled on purpose) is going to the Congress with his State of the Union speech to tell us (Sheep) everything is okey dokey tonight and that we the people should follow the course he has lead us on as a nation. Some say that you can judge a political speech by the number of times a person blinks while giving it. More blinks is bad, less is good.

All of the crisis’s facing our nation we can beat as a people, provided he gets out of office in less than a year. I don’t think its even necessary that he fill out a change of address card with the post office simply because nobody is going to care where he ends up as long as it is not in our nations capitol. He is going to go on in his speech about issues that he and Darth Cheney can coast on out of office and leave the clean up for the next Oval Office occupant. Issues that he now cares about but worked against when he had a Republican Congress.

One of the issues that I look forward to him speaking on is Middle East peace. Bush and Middle East peace is definitely an oxymoron if ever I heard of one. This from a guy that has probably ingrained hatred of all American’s for generations to come from the people that actually live in any country in the Middle East. When he speaks of being in the region for one hundred years he isn’t kidding. Just as long as it is your children serving in our military and dying for his bravado. How can he speak of peace when he has our military troops stationed all over the area but concentrated in Iraq based on wag the dog theories? We could have hired one of those 1-900 psychic’s and had better intelligence to invade Iraq and force a policy of “Nation Building” on the Iraqi people.

When you get right down to it the state of the union is not sound and has not been for seven years. From the minute the planes crashed into the World Trade Center buildings our nation has been in chaos and in that new found chaos the ability to sell fear became an immediate commodity to Bush and company. What should terrify you most is that he actually believes his own lies and misdirection. While he and the Congress of both political parties diverted the people into a corner of fear and patriotism they left the business of America at home behind. With us or against us became a catch phrase of strength and yet it shadowed and covered our own ignorance of what has been going on unchecked here at home. That same mantra is used as a weapon by people of ordinary means to pit Republican against Democrat, Liberal against Conservative. Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone out of this nation to prop up an Iraq government that behind the scenes wants our troops off of their sovereign soil. Meanwhile our bridges are collapsing, our schools are falling behind, our healthcare system is broken, our homes are being lost in record numbers and our borders are wide open if you want to come in. Just don’t try getting out if you are an actual legal American citizen.

Then again Bush has the remaining Republican candidates for his job convinced that his mission is right and we should stay the course. McCain has bought into it so much that he too will keep our troops in Iraq for one hundred years if need be. McCain can use the argument that we still have troops in Germany, Japan and Korea decades after the conflicts and war and that is true but diplomacy made that possible. There was not one iota of “My way or the highway” in the diplomacy that made that possible.

Our State of the Union is not a pep rally by any means this year. It is going to be more of who Precedent Bush wishes he could have been. What he should have done. With this being his last speech to the entire Congress I expect compassion for the poor and the sick, for the children and education, support for our military is a given. Of course he will end his speech with God bless America but in reality he is only wishing that God actually bless the top two percent of income earners. He’s compassionate that way but Joe and Joanne Six-pack do not donate huge dollars to a Presidential Library do they?

One thing I am sure of at this time in the state of our union is that Precedent Bush has destroyed the Republican Party and any candidate dreaming of the White House. God works in wonderful ways like that. Reap what you sow and stuff like that. Thank you God and President Bush!

Papamoka

Feel free to link to or borrow this post…

Cross posted at MichaelLinnJones.com and Bring IT ON!

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Cheney, Congress, State of the Union, Republican, Democrat, Elections, Economy, Outsourcing Jobs, Border, Immigration, politics, Presidential election, Florida, Democrat for President, Jobs, healthcare, Education, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Florida Election, Campaign, White House, Run for President

A WALTZ DOWN MEMORY LANE IN 2009

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

I've grown weary of the constant schoolyard buzz whirling about presidential candidates. It has become tedious. And boring. I don't think I can take much more of reading tea leaves to predict who is going to win Iowa, or New Hampshire, etc. It has become so predictable that I've decided to just leap ahead a couple of years.

What my crystal ball tells me is no less accurate than professional pontificators, or any less honest. Well, I'll concede on the honesty part because with this crop of hopefuls outright lying is not beyond the realm of possibility.

But I digress from my digression. Assume for a moment that the year 2008 has come and gone, and we find ourselves a few months into 2009. Here I offer a small collection of what-might-as-well-be's:

President-elect Hillary Clinton stunned experts by naming her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as American Ambassador to Monaco. Relations with several European countries were strained upon learning that Bill Clinton "got to know" a number of female members of European royalty as well as the wives of prominent politicians. Republicans in Congress were also outraged that a special Presidential aircraft was permanently assigned to the "First Bubba" for his exclusive use. Demanding an all-female flight crew was the cherry on top for the opponents of the Clinton(s) administration.

By February 2009 it became fashionable (and required of White House reporters) to refer to the new president as "Hillary The Great." By March, President Hillary had issued more signing statements than former President George W. Bush had in his entire eight years of tenure. Some of the over 900 Presidential edicts are listed below:

Tax on cigarettes to be $150 per pack.
Possession of cigarettes to be a federal felony offense.
Frowning prohibited in public.
Any woman with a better physique than the president barred from federal employment (this resulted in a severe shortage of employees, solved only by a then-illegal data-mining of the Lane Bryant customer base.)

Tom Brady stunned the sporting world by simultaneously dating both Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. This might explain New England's 2-14 record after their Superbowl win the previous January.

Former President Bush was named as honorary President of Baylor University in recognition of his extraordinary grasp of economics. The university subsequently filed for bankruptcy. President Bush finally fulfilled his promise to sit on the porch of Trent Lott's Katrina-damaged chalet in Mississippi. The FEMA-financed cottage had somehow expanded into a 14,000 square foot monstrosity with a final cost of $18.7 million. Former President Bush observed that if it hadn't been for that Kelo decision the costs would have been much higher in running off all those poor folks whose land Trent needed.

Many were surprised that two hours after her inauguration, Hillary The Great ordered the arrest of Karl Rove and had him placed in Gitmo as an "enemy noncombatant." In a special signing statement, HTG announced that "enemy noncomatant" was anyone she didn't like, calling Rove a "fat slob" who needed "to be taught a lesson." Rove was released after 7 weeks, in large part due to the efforts of his supporters, who had purchased and established THE KARL ROVE PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT LIBARY (not a mis-spelling, that's the way they say library) in Tickturd, Texas. The library is a simple structure built in the middle of 40 acres of bull manure-infested pasture. "Seems kinda right to me," quipped one of the site workers.

With the total collapse of the home mortgage market in 2008, along with a number of large banks and corporations, the administration decided to take immediate action by using government funds in the oil commodities market. Citing the president's luck in cattle futures in Arkansas, the thought was that funds could thus be raised to bail out destitute speculators on the government's dime. This was known as "No Greedy Pig Left Behind."

It was not forseen (except by about 298 million Americans) that the price of oil would skyrocket. By March 2009 a barrel of oil peaked at $275 . President Clinton Her Ladyship pointed to the positive effects: with so few people actually having jobs or the money to get to work, the number of traffic deaths and injuries had plummeted. Al Gore was enthusiastic, noting that the atmosphere now looked a lot cleaner from the cabin of his private jet.

62 bridges collapsed in 2008, primarily caused by overloaded Mexican trucks. A Dept. of Transportation official said that a weight limit of 34 tons was being ignored, with many Mexican trucks topping 50 to 60 tons. However, this was cited as another example of the success of NAFTA. (???)

The Clinton adminstration blamed the infrastructure shortcomings on the Bush adminstration, who immediately placed the blame on the Clinton administration (no, the first one I mean), who immediately blamed it on the Bush administration (the first one, again), who immediately blamed it on Jimmy Carter. The Houses of Bush and Clinton finally agreed to blame everything on Jimmy Carter.

As we all look forward to 2010, we can thank our lucky stars that our leaders are looking out for us almost as much as they look after themselves.

Well, it's nice to think so, anyway.

Happy New Year!!!!
**********************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

All We Have to Fear Are Candidates Selling Fear

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

If one is fortunate they never experience the trauma of long-term and chronic fear. I agree wholeheartedly with the "fight or flight" syndrome; that is, when confronted with a threat we either avoid it or fight back if cornered.

But fear can also be used, manipulated. Very few Americans have ever heard of Bobby Sands. He was incarcerated at Long Kesh Prison for possession of firearms. Sands was a volunteer with the Irish Republican Army. Claiming that he and other IRA members were political, rather than criminal prisoners, he took part in a hunger strike. In May, 1981, Bobby Sands died.

Following his death there were numerous mock funerals for Mr. Sands. I was in the city of Limerick when one occurred there. It was the first time in my life that I saw fear on peoples' faces. Or trepidation. There was also anger, as the "funeral" was surrounded by an air of intimidation. If any business was open during the march down O'Connell Street, there were implied repercussions. What was eye-opening was the display of how civil authority could be so openly challenged.

That memory was the first thing to come to my mind when I read Bill Clinton Warns of "Unexpected", a Washington Post article by Alec MacGillis.

Addressing more than 100 supporters gathered at a VFW hall here, Clinton said that there were four reasons to vote for his wife: her vision, her plans, her experience -- the three reasons he has been giving in his stump speech until now -- plus, he said, a fourth, the threat of the unknown.

"Here's the other thing you need to know, the most important thing of all. You have to have a leader who is strong and commanding and convincing enough...to deal with the unexpected," he said. "There is a better than a 50 percent chance that sometime in the first year or 18 months of the next presidency something will happen that is not being discussed in this campaign. President Bush never talked about Osama Bin Laden and didn't foresee Hurricane Katrina. And if you're not ready for that then everything else you do can be undermined. You need a president that you trust to deal with something that we will not discuss in this campaign....And I think on this score she's the best of all."

I know that there are a number of endorsements for different candidates being offered. The best I can do is put forth a few "un-endorsements," specifically for two candidates. They are Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Guiliani has been a fear-monger from the get-go, and now we have the one man in America we can all trust telling us that his wife is our only salvation. From "it," whatever "it" is or will be.

Before contemplating who would be the best person to sit in the Oval Office on January 20th, 2009, it behooves us to look at 16 years of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton(?) dynasty. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both scrambled for their "legacies" in the waning months of their presidencies. It can best be summed up thusly: 8 years of a very cynical con artist followed by 8 years of a very cynical bully.

With the death of Benizar Bhutto, the emphasis of the campaign is veering towards the appeal of fear. Fear is a very emotional and irrational reaction to a threat. Constant fear, promoted for political gain, is nothing more than subjecting an entire society to massive Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's quite an effective technique in shredding the Constitution along with an extremely dangerous expansion of executive power.

But....but....there's a war on, ya know? Of course there is; there always will be. Orwell's 1984 describes the ever-changing alliances in the world, with allies and enemies constantly changing. And, with history itself re-written every few years to accommodate the agenda of "Big Brother." A common theme in Orwell's book is "Big Brother loves you."

Well, to hell with Big Brother. I don't want any government "loving" me to death because that's exactly what happens. Instilling fear into the populace is the key to the door of oppression.

Hatred is fear's roommate. Watch closely; see beyond the rhetoric and in most cases you'll see fear transformed into hatred.

In the meantime, the earth may be melting, Martians may conquer us, Islamic hordes may sweep across the world, and God forbid I might actually be mortal and die someday, despite the nanny state assuring me that this will not come to pass if I just fear everything.

How about a little encouragment? You know, the kind that tells us that we can make things happen; that tells us to believe in ourelves and our republic DESPITE the oafs who "serve" in the government.

But perhaps hope is too much to hope for.

************************ This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Technorati Tags:
Hillary, Bill Clinton, Presidency, Iowa, New Hampshire, Politics, Fear, Campaigning on fear, Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Biden, Dodd, Obama, Des Moines, Caucus, January third, Favorite Candidate, running for president, oval office, washington post

Finally a Realistic Energy Policy

It only took 32 years for the Congress and the White House to finally realize that the sacrifice American’s need to make is in our energy consumption. All of the SUV’s that are gulping down the Go-go juice will have to change and that is just the beginning of the end of the oil monopoly in the world. President Bush has stated that he will sign the bill into law and frankly I thought he would have vetoed it based on some ridiculous facts. I am frankly and apologetically stating that I was wrong about President Bush and this issue. Stuff that up your back side Haszinski! That is another story from another post.

Through all the arguments in the House and in the Senate over the last few weeks we now have a compromise and an energy policy that just might reverse the madness that is our energy usage. Over at the New York Times they have this coverage on the only real energy policy change in 32 years in America…

House Passes Sweeping Energy Bill

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: December 18, 2007

WASHINGTON — Legislation that will slowly but fundamentally change the cars Americans drive, the fuel they burn, the way they light their homes and the price they pay for food cleared the House on Tuesday by a large margin. President Bush said he would sign the hard-fought energy bill on Wednesday.

The bill, which passed on a bipartisan vote of 314 to 100, sets higher fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks by law for the first time in 32 years and requires the production of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, a nearly fivefold increase from current ethanol production levels.

The measure, known as the Energy Independence and Security Act, also establishes new efficiency requirements for household appliances and government buildings and aims to phase out the incandescent light bulb within 10 years.

Its passage marks one of the largest single steps on energy that the nation has taken since the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970’s. But its full costs will not be known for years.
Critics contend it will make cars and trucks less safe and more expensive, divert farmland to costly production of feedstock for ethanol and other synthetic fuels, and raise the price of food because of competition for corn and grain between fuel refiners and livestock growers. - New York Times

With the strangle hold of the Middle East on our energy consumption needs we need this policy as a starting point. No matter what items were dropped from this piece of legislation it gets us started down the road to freedom and energy independence. Arguments from both sides of the aisle have finished for now and the debate on tweaking it will be up to the next President’s of this nation and for that matter the next generations coming up. What has been started with this legislation we can only hope that it will begin the process of new energy sources from all thoughts possible by the human mind.

There are so many payoffs to our nation with these changes in the future that leads me to a sense of comfort for the first time in my adult life. This is the first time in three plus decades that our nation and our Government has literally chucked the bird at the corporations here at home and around the world when it comes to our energy needs. Our children or future grandchildren will never be obligated or owned by a foreign nation that can dangle our way of life over their heads ever again. Energy sources made in the good old United States of America and not imported can never be a bad thing.

Somewhere at OPEC headquarters it could possibly be heard “Doo-ohhh!” when President Bush signs this into law. That would be similar to Homer Simpson with an Arabic accent but you get the general idea. At $2.00 production cost for Saudi Arabia and the market price flirting at $100 per barrel every couple of weeks the writing is on the wall for this over priced energy source.

The ramifications of American interest and involvement in the Middle East region with its never ending turmoil because of this policy will drop as our nation slowly backs away from their strangle hold on the oil supply. Energy independence will only work if we keep locking horns over it and debating this critical issue for all Americans. This should not have taken 32 years. I think we can do better than that now. Realistically, we do not have a choice other than to do better.

Papamoka

Cross posted at Bring IT ON! and Michael Linn Jones

Feel free to link to or borrow this post…

Technorati Tags:
Energy Policy, President Bush, Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Democrat, Republican, New York Times, John M Broder, Middle East, Oil, Gasoline, Energy Consumption, Renewable Fuels, Ethanol, Alternative Energy, Green House Gases, Global Warming, Compromise in Government, Speaker Pelosi, W, White House, Energy Needs, Wind Power, Solar Power, Wave Power, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, OPEC, Gas Prices, Detroit, CAFÉ Standard