For decades the radical Right has claimed that universities are havens for liberals who seek to brainwash American youth into hating the United States, but the fact is that there is a growing control of higher education by the Neo-Conservative movement that should trouble most Americans, especially those who value academic freedom, and sadly liberality shares in the blame. Neo-cons now occupy prominent positions on faculties and boards across the nation and they have been exercising their power. In addition, the Right has for some time now been developing a network of institutions designed to increase the visibility and clout of Neo-Cons on campuses. The actions and effects of this movement go largely undiscussed.
Liberality has a peculiar weakness....it is inclusive. At its worst, liberal inclusivity leads to a stringent, unthinking, reactionary political correctness like that which washed across campuses during the 1990s. Unfortunately, the Neo-Cons knew how to take advantage of this weakness and still do. It is not a coincidence that there has been a rise in the activity of what Russell Jacoby writing for The Nation coined "Crybaby Conservatives." Liberals, even those with tenure, now fear for their jobs because of threats of lawsuits by pseudo-conservative students backed by right-wing money who don't "like" what their professor has to say. It has had a chilling effect on academic discourse in many classrooms and has even affected left-wing student movements that fear retaliation from the university administration.
Liberal political correctness has also furthered the Neo-Conservatism that attacks true liberality. One must first ask a basic question. "How do so many Neo-Cons continue to have degrees conferred upon them?" The liberal penchant for tolerating different ideas and approaches combined with apprehension of retaliation from the Right has led to the practice of labeling Right-wing rhetoric antinomically valid. Therefore, Neo-Conservatives continue to win degrees, awards, positions and other honors when their work is based upon patently false premises. The rationale that is utilized by universities says that, even though academia, in general, disagrees with Neo-Conservative arguments and logic, they must confer degrees because Neo-Cons have a right to their opinions and, ludicrously, their arguments are logically valid within the context of the work, false premises or not. In other words, in order to appease the snivelling self-righteousness of Neo-Cons , universities now consider work in a factual vacuum. How else does an Antonin Scalia get a law degree? How does a John Yoo attain a position at Berkeley? How does a Paul Gigot receive a Pulitzer? Why is Republican supply-side economics still taught? In affect, academic institutions are extending honors to people whose dissertation in geology would be on the flatness of the Earth.
8/30/2006
8/12/2006
Wage Slaves and Feudalism
The purpose of government is to protect and benefit the citizenry. Liberals see this duty as extending to all necessary aspects of life including food, shelter, healthcare, education and the like. Conservatives, especially the "Con"-servatives currently in power, see government protection as concerning only the military and, when linked with our military-commerce-industrial complex, the uber-rich and the corporations they run. Most everyone is aware of this and we see it when the GOP marches out its utterly disproved rhetoric and tells us that tax breaks for the wealthy spur the economy and a minimum wage costs us jobs. They are preaching flat-earth economics, a.k.a.......Hoover-style bunk.
The business of the U.S. government is not corporate monopoly or plutocracy and, contrary to right-wing rhetoristorians, it never has been. (The East India Co. cured the framers of that nonsense.) This can be easily shown. A republic functions by the will of the people in a bottom-up fashion. Corporations are hierarchical systems founded upon an authoritarian model reminiscent of feudal baronies. They are inherently anti-democratic. So why does the Right insist on their American-ness and if someone runs our government on this model, have they not performed a de facto coup? Moreover, big corporations receive so much "welfare" in the form of subsidies and tax breaks that the Right has fostered the very Socialism it vilifies. Think of a big box store. Americans believe they are getting more for less. But in actuality, if we factor in subsidies and tax breaks (not to mention aid for their underpaid employees), Americans are paying exponentially more for such a great "deal." A $1 product could really cost $10.
It is realistic to picture big corporations as gluttonous barons and everyone else as serfs, "freemen", etc.; the Right's idea of America. Sounds a lot like what the Founders wanted to avoid, doesn't it? The corporations will claim that business operates on a Smithian capitalist "free" market system, as they regulary do. Bosh! They know very well that Smithian economics requires both robust competition and a high level of redistribution. They abandoned this anathema long ago in favor of the Robber Baron model, where they take what belongs to us all and sell it back to us, in one way or another, while the government, who they own, looks the other way.
The patriotic economic system of the U.S. is the liberal version and, while the Right decries it as Communist or Socialist, it is truer capitalism. Here's why. If you have a higher income it is because you exploit more resources, either directly or indirectly. This includes labor. Since resources originate in the common pool, one must pay for their use. In the U.S, one pays for resources used by......paying taxes. Corporations and much of the wealthy are using the vast bulk of our resources and, by so doing, are depriving the rest of us of them. Simply put, in good capitalist fashion, the more you take, the more you owe. Hence, the problem with our tax system is that those who take the most are not paying for it in proportion to use.
The corporate socialists will, of course, balk and claim that they create jobs. That would be nice if it were true and the few jobs that are created were worth anything. Maximization of profits demands lousy jobs. But even if it was true, they create jobs in order to exploit labor and, thereby, increase profit. Corporatists will also claim that the poor take advantage and, as the rich do, take without paying. It never occurs to them that to have haves there have to be have nots. They also neglect to consider that, in a post-industrial society, self-made men are a myth as the rich proverbially stand on the shoulders of the poor. But moreover, if our society paid the so-called unproductive to stay out of the workforce, the nation's productivity could only increase as only the ambitious would be involved. Sound crazy? You're brainwashed. The business world knows this is true as it knows that higher wages and more time off increase worker productivity. Unfortunately, the truly "ambitious" or, shall we say, greedy, seem to enjoy inflicting unhappiness.
Now we can hopefully see how ludicrous our economic system has become and how un-American it really is. Unrestricted monopolized-market capitalism has a nasty M.O. and it will eventually eat itself out of existence.
The business of the U.S. government is not corporate monopoly or plutocracy and, contrary to right-wing rhetoristorians, it never has been. (The East India Co. cured the framers of that nonsense.) This can be easily shown. A republic functions by the will of the people in a bottom-up fashion. Corporations are hierarchical systems founded upon an authoritarian model reminiscent of feudal baronies. They are inherently anti-democratic. So why does the Right insist on their American-ness and if someone runs our government on this model, have they not performed a de facto coup? Moreover, big corporations receive so much "welfare" in the form of subsidies and tax breaks that the Right has fostered the very Socialism it vilifies. Think of a big box store. Americans believe they are getting more for less. But in actuality, if we factor in subsidies and tax breaks (not to mention aid for their underpaid employees), Americans are paying exponentially more for such a great "deal." A $1 product could really cost $10.
It is realistic to picture big corporations as gluttonous barons and everyone else as serfs, "freemen", etc.; the Right's idea of America. Sounds a lot like what the Founders wanted to avoid, doesn't it? The corporations will claim that business operates on a Smithian capitalist "free" market system, as they regulary do. Bosh! They know very well that Smithian economics requires both robust competition and a high level of redistribution. They abandoned this anathema long ago in favor of the Robber Baron model, where they take what belongs to us all and sell it back to us, in one way or another, while the government, who they own, looks the other way.
The patriotic economic system of the U.S. is the liberal version and, while the Right decries it as Communist or Socialist, it is truer capitalism. Here's why. If you have a higher income it is because you exploit more resources, either directly or indirectly. This includes labor. Since resources originate in the common pool, one must pay for their use. In the U.S, one pays for resources used by......paying taxes. Corporations and much of the wealthy are using the vast bulk of our resources and, by so doing, are depriving the rest of us of them. Simply put, in good capitalist fashion, the more you take, the more you owe. Hence, the problem with our tax system is that those who take the most are not paying for it in proportion to use.
The corporate socialists will, of course, balk and claim that they create jobs. That would be nice if it were true and the few jobs that are created were worth anything. Maximization of profits demands lousy jobs. But even if it was true, they create jobs in order to exploit labor and, thereby, increase profit. Corporatists will also claim that the poor take advantage and, as the rich do, take without paying. It never occurs to them that to have haves there have to be have nots. They also neglect to consider that, in a post-industrial society, self-made men are a myth as the rich proverbially stand on the shoulders of the poor. But moreover, if our society paid the so-called unproductive to stay out of the workforce, the nation's productivity could only increase as only the ambitious would be involved. Sound crazy? You're brainwashed. The business world knows this is true as it knows that higher wages and more time off increase worker productivity. Unfortunately, the truly "ambitious" or, shall we say, greedy, seem to enjoy inflicting unhappiness.
Now we can hopefully see how ludicrous our economic system has become and how un-American it really is. Unrestricted monopolized-market capitalism has a nasty M.O. and it will eventually eat itself out of existence.
8/09/2006
Evidence of Election Tampering to be Destroyed
With all of the questions surrounding the outcome of the 2004 presidential elections, one would think the public would be eager to know what actually happened in Ohio. One might expect elections officials to care enough to see that the outcome of the election was correct. One might even expect to hear something about reams of accusations of alleged tampering and fraud. One might want to find coverage of the hearings held by John Conyers. One might want to see Ken Blackwell investigated for his Harris-style roll. One might even want to know about the impending destruction of the Ohio 2004 election ballots! What???!!!! That's right. Ohio officials, in accordance with Ohio state law, are planning on destroying the tainted 2004 ballots on September 3, 2006....... in less than a month!
According to SavetheBallots.org, Ohio officials have said that they "can't wait" to destroy the ballots and bury the controversy with them. So much for democracy. One would think that, with all of the questions concerning fraud, someone would have the ability to stop the destruction and rescue the ballots, otherwise known as the smoking gun. Those officials, Ohio Repugs, have not only no intention of investigating election fraud themselves, but are bound and determined to see that no one has the ability. Is there a more clear admission of guilt?
Ken Blackwell, the Harris of Ohio and now candidate for Governor, not only has no intention of letting investigations take place, but plans on using the same machines (made by a company he owned stock in) and, one can assume, the same tactics alleged to have been used in 2004 to secure his own election.
Another great miscarriage of justice is about to occur and is being ignored, as usual, by the mainstream media!
To help go to: www.savetheballots.org or write to them at info@savetheballots.org.
According to SavetheBallots.org, Ohio officials have said that they "can't wait" to destroy the ballots and bury the controversy with them. So much for democracy. One would think that, with all of the questions concerning fraud, someone would have the ability to stop the destruction and rescue the ballots, otherwise known as the smoking gun. Those officials, Ohio Repugs, have not only no intention of investigating election fraud themselves, but are bound and determined to see that no one has the ability. Is there a more clear admission of guilt?
Ken Blackwell, the Harris of Ohio and now candidate for Governor, not only has no intention of letting investigations take place, but plans on using the same machines (made by a company he owned stock in) and, one can assume, the same tactics alleged to have been used in 2004 to secure his own election.
Another great miscarriage of justice is about to occur and is being ignored, as usual, by the mainstream media!
To help go to: www.savetheballots.org or write to them at info@savetheballots.org.
Save the Majority!!!
Heard Air America? The Majority Report with Sam Seder is one of the network's top shows, but for some reason AA is considering dropping it. The funny thing is that Sam Seder is one of its most knowledgeable hosts. He is amiable and accommodating to his (non-Rethuglican) callers and guests. The show is entertaining AND informative, which is hard to achieve on radio, and it is odd that the powers that be would consider canceling it. If the problem is low ratings (which is hard to believe) it would seem to be more a peculiar case of an unflattering time slot than a reflection on Seder or the show. Maybe it has something to do with the format change from two hosts to one, with the leaving of Janeane Garofalo, but that doesn't fly since it was originally Seder's show. It sounds like politics and a left-wing network has no business acting like a corporate thug.
Along with Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Thom Hartmann, Laura Flanders, State of Belief and Ring of Fire, Sam Seder forms the backbone of AA's truly liberal programming. The station has relied heavily on the star power of the ever-"centrist"-drifting Franken and the Clear Channel connected Springer, but they are the draw, while shows like The Majority Report are the hook.
If you don't listen to the show you should give it a chance. (Check Air America for times and affiliates in your area.) If you do listen, give Sam a hand by calling in during the show at 1-866-303-2270 and firing off an e-mail to supporttheshow@majorityreportradio.com.
Along with Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Thom Hartmann, Laura Flanders, State of Belief and Ring of Fire, Sam Seder forms the backbone of AA's truly liberal programming. The station has relied heavily on the star power of the ever-"centrist"-drifting Franken and the Clear Channel connected Springer, but they are the draw, while shows like The Majority Report are the hook.
If you don't listen to the show you should give it a chance. (Check Air America for times and affiliates in your area.) If you do listen, give Sam a hand by calling in during the show at 1-866-303-2270 and firing off an e-mail to supporttheshow@majorityreportradio.com.
The Grass in the Machine
After a great effort in Connecticut, Ned Lamont succeeded in ousting Democrat-turned-Bush sycophant Joe Lieberman. Establishment Democrats must be scratching their heads with fury and confusion and they should be. These Pandercrats still don't get it even if most of them have now superficially endorsed Lamont. They likely believe they just have a mild case of dry scalp which a little rhetorical pine tar shampoo can cure. They don't understand that the body of the Democratic party has sprouted grass.....and it's growing.
Lamont's defeat of Lieberman is part of a continuing change of the political landscape from a desert of disaffected voters to a valley of fertile political activity where the elected will be held accountable to the electorate. Across the nation, grass roots candidates and political outsiders have begun marching towards the fallow ground of the Democratic elite.....and they are taking root. Organizations such as Democracy for America (DFA), a major Lamont backer, and others, have candidates running for and winning seats all over the country at all levels of government. This is a fight the grass roots plan to win even if it is an uphill battle.
The DLC and the mainstream media are obviously unhappy about Connecticut. This morning's airtime was dedicated almost solely to Lieberman's whining about Lamont's supposed distortion of his record. (Hey Joe, how stupid do you think we are?!!!) When they should have been covering Lamont and focusing on a Democratic win in November, they were, instead, licking their wounds, admitting the co-opted nature of the Democratic elite and buffering Joe "Bush-Loves-Me" Lieberman for a run as an independent that jeopardizes the Democratic ticket. But, for some reason, we are still supposed to believe that Joe is a REAL Democrat and Lamont is an "insurgent" lunatic. Well, Lamont is an insurgent, as Newt (a former insurgent himself) so tersely put it, but the good kind. Read more about Lamont's background in The Nation. (Didn't it strike the 48-odd% of Democrats in Connecticut strange that Newt was weighing in for Lieberman?)
In coming years, we will see more grass roots challenges from the left fighting for the soul of the Democratic party. Hopefully, as liberal ideas creep back into the mainstream, more liberal candidates will take the place of "centrist" Pandercrats. It is time that the left again had a chance to implement the policies that have worked so well in the past. The Right has repeatedly proved that its ideas are bunk, but the Pandercrats still won't act. The result has never been worse. Joe Lieberman is not a victim of anti-Iraq war sentiment. He is a victim of arrogance and complicity. The grass is in the machine and it is up to the people to keep watering it.
Lamont's defeat of Lieberman is part of a continuing change of the political landscape from a desert of disaffected voters to a valley of fertile political activity where the elected will be held accountable to the electorate. Across the nation, grass roots candidates and political outsiders have begun marching towards the fallow ground of the Democratic elite.....and they are taking root. Organizations such as Democracy for America (DFA), a major Lamont backer, and others, have candidates running for and winning seats all over the country at all levels of government. This is a fight the grass roots plan to win even if it is an uphill battle.
The DLC and the mainstream media are obviously unhappy about Connecticut. This morning's airtime was dedicated almost solely to Lieberman's whining about Lamont's supposed distortion of his record. (Hey Joe, how stupid do you think we are?!!!) When they should have been covering Lamont and focusing on a Democratic win in November, they were, instead, licking their wounds, admitting the co-opted nature of the Democratic elite and buffering Joe "Bush-Loves-Me" Lieberman for a run as an independent that jeopardizes the Democratic ticket. But, for some reason, we are still supposed to believe that Joe is a REAL Democrat and Lamont is an "insurgent" lunatic. Well, Lamont is an insurgent, as Newt (a former insurgent himself) so tersely put it, but the good kind. Read more about Lamont's background in The Nation. (Didn't it strike the 48-odd% of Democrats in Connecticut strange that Newt was weighing in for Lieberman?)
In coming years, we will see more grass roots challenges from the left fighting for the soul of the Democratic party. Hopefully, as liberal ideas creep back into the mainstream, more liberal candidates will take the place of "centrist" Pandercrats. It is time that the left again had a chance to implement the policies that have worked so well in the past. The Right has repeatedly proved that its ideas are bunk, but the Pandercrats still won't act. The result has never been worse. Joe Lieberman is not a victim of anti-Iraq war sentiment. He is a victim of arrogance and complicity. The grass is in the machine and it is up to the people to keep watering it.
8/04/2006
PNAC ATTACK ON AMERICA
Many, or should I say most, people in the American mainstream are still unaware of the existence of PNAC, otherwise known as the the Project for the New American Century. PNAC is a right-wing think tank that is.... and no I'm not kidding.... bent on global domination through U.S. military might. It was begun by Bill Kristol, a regular pundit on many "news" shows, and Robert Kagan. Kristol is completely looney toons. PNAC, among others, has been a key player in shaping the agenda of the Bush cabal. In fact, a quick view of its website should be enough to give the averge person a good idea of what it's all about.
PNAC is the group responsible for lobbying Clinton to attack Iraq, yes Iraq, in the 1990s and on the site you will find a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses. This document lays out PNAC's military/economic agenda for the United States. It also contains a startling idea. On page 51, you will discover one of PNAC's statements that says that a "new Pearl Harbor" would go a long way in facilitating the public's acceptence of PNAC's plans. This document came out in September of 2000. That should be enough information to get people interested in investigating, or at least it might perk up their ears. But the document and the think tank's agenda have been widely ignored by the mainstream media even though they continue to interview Kristol. For that reason, it is necessary to demonstrate how PNAC is corrupting government. We can do this by examining its most incriminating document.
Rebuilding America's Defenses
The author's of this authoritarian/imperialist manifesto have done us a great service. At the beginning of the document we find they have left us an outline of the paper's main points. It is layed out eerily like a checklist. So let's do some checking.
Some of the proposals listed are somewhat ambiguous as to their real meaning, so we will examine a few that are not.
"...fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars...": Gee. Does this one really need explaining? We are already in Afghanistan and Iraq and it looks daily as if we are going into Iran and Syria. Remember, however, that the Middle East is only the beginning of their plan. There is still the Balkans (unless that was Clinton's job), East Asia and, for some, reason, Europe and the UN. Apparently PNAC sees our longtime allies as threats to our security. This is, of course, (excluding the idea that PNAC and the WTO/IMF/World Bank/etc. club is tied in with PNAC) unless we have already economically conquered these areas.
"...perform 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions...": It has always been seen as a violation of American law for the U.S. to engage in police actions. However, that is exactly what we are doing in Iraq and that is exactly what PNAC wants. We are supposed to be turning over Iraq to the Iraqis, but be assured that is not the plan. This is also where the competing interests of the oil men come in. If we were actually leaving Iraq would we be building permanent bases?
"Maintain Nuclear Strategic Superiority": And you thought the Cold War was over! Bush has already opted out of the ABM Treaty and it looks like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is a goner. But Americans really need those Indian mangoes. This is how they plan to reignite the Cold War (and people thought Condi Rice had no real place in the administration).
"Control the New 'International Commons' of Space and Cyberspace": This is one of those you don't too often hear about in the corporate press. There has been some talk about deep-sixing Internet neutrality and the Congress has moved on it. Of course, they seem to be on the side of big-business as opposed to the people. This is step one in the privatization of the Internet. It is most likely also part of the plan to scare the public into tighter restrictions on the web by pushing the ideas of Internet predation and Identity Theft. There are very likely lots of predators and thieves out there, but, if it's such a big deal, why does the government continue to put our inforamtion on the web and why do parents continue to allow their children unsupervised access to the net? Besides the last high profile predator convicted was one of the same group of people in the DHS telling us to be afraid and charged with our protection.
"...the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces- with the mission of space control." : This has to be a joke right?!! Nope. The little Neo-Cons think the aliens are coming for them. More to the point, they want to have complete military control over space, probably because they think the evil Pan-Franco and Russo-fascists will out-fascista them first. There have already been reports of space war simulations. Then there was the little reported move by Tom DeLay in Texas. After the Repugs Perry-mandered the districts (Perry is the governor) Texans found that NASA's Houston, was suddenly in DeLay's district. Then there are the GOP-led NASA budget cuts. It's just like with schools and the U.S. Post Office. The Bushies are strangling them in the hopes of garnering support for privatization.
"Develop and Deploy Global Missile Defense Systems": Can anyone say Star Wars? Although this ridiculous idea of trying to, essentially, hit a pencil launched from a slingshot out of the air with a smaller pencil (try it!) was aborted years ago because it DOESN"T WORK, the boys, mostly, at PNAC still think it's a grand idea. They have lots going on this front like the MDA and NMD. They keep claiming success also. Too bad they have to put radio transmitters on the "enemy" missiles in order to hit them.
These are just a few of the overwhelming amount of suggested actions, developed by PNAC, that the administration has seen fit to undertake. Go to PNAC's website, or the website of the PNAC watchdog, to see just how imporatnt these lunatics are to this administration.
More later.
PNAC is the group responsible for lobbying Clinton to attack Iraq, yes Iraq, in the 1990s and on the site you will find a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses. This document lays out PNAC's military/economic agenda for the United States. It also contains a startling idea. On page 51, you will discover one of PNAC's statements that says that a "new Pearl Harbor" would go a long way in facilitating the public's acceptence of PNAC's plans. This document came out in September of 2000. That should be enough information to get people interested in investigating, or at least it might perk up their ears. But the document and the think tank's agenda have been widely ignored by the mainstream media even though they continue to interview Kristol. For that reason, it is necessary to demonstrate how PNAC is corrupting government. We can do this by examining its most incriminating document.
Rebuilding America's Defenses
The author's of this authoritarian/imperialist manifesto have done us a great service. At the beginning of the document we find they have left us an outline of the paper's main points. It is layed out eerily like a checklist. So let's do some checking.
Some of the proposals listed are somewhat ambiguous as to their real meaning, so we will examine a few that are not.
"...fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars...": Gee. Does this one really need explaining? We are already in Afghanistan and Iraq and it looks daily as if we are going into Iran and Syria. Remember, however, that the Middle East is only the beginning of their plan. There is still the Balkans (unless that was Clinton's job), East Asia and, for some, reason, Europe and the UN. Apparently PNAC sees our longtime allies as threats to our security. This is, of course, (excluding the idea that PNAC and the WTO/IMF/World Bank/etc. club is tied in with PNAC) unless we have already economically conquered these areas.
"...perform 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions...": It has always been seen as a violation of American law for the U.S. to engage in police actions. However, that is exactly what we are doing in Iraq and that is exactly what PNAC wants. We are supposed to be turning over Iraq to the Iraqis, but be assured that is not the plan. This is also where the competing interests of the oil men come in. If we were actually leaving Iraq would we be building permanent bases?
"Maintain Nuclear Strategic Superiority": And you thought the Cold War was over! Bush has already opted out of the ABM Treaty and it looks like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is a goner. But Americans really need those Indian mangoes. This is how they plan to reignite the Cold War (and people thought Condi Rice had no real place in the administration).
"Control the New 'International Commons' of Space and Cyberspace": This is one of those you don't too often hear about in the corporate press. There has been some talk about deep-sixing Internet neutrality and the Congress has moved on it. Of course, they seem to be on the side of big-business as opposed to the people. This is step one in the privatization of the Internet. It is most likely also part of the plan to scare the public into tighter restrictions on the web by pushing the ideas of Internet predation and Identity Theft. There are very likely lots of predators and thieves out there, but, if it's such a big deal, why does the government continue to put our inforamtion on the web and why do parents continue to allow their children unsupervised access to the net? Besides the last high profile predator convicted was one of the same group of people in the DHS telling us to be afraid and charged with our protection.
"...the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces- with the mission of space control." : This has to be a joke right?!! Nope. The little Neo-Cons think the aliens are coming for them. More to the point, they want to have complete military control over space, probably because they think the evil Pan-Franco and Russo-fascists will out-fascista them first. There have already been reports of space war simulations. Then there was the little reported move by Tom DeLay in Texas. After the Repugs Perry-mandered the districts (Perry is the governor) Texans found that NASA's Houston, was suddenly in DeLay's district. Then there are the GOP-led NASA budget cuts. It's just like with schools and the U.S. Post Office. The Bushies are strangling them in the hopes of garnering support for privatization.
"Develop and Deploy Global Missile Defense Systems": Can anyone say Star Wars? Although this ridiculous idea of trying to, essentially, hit a pencil launched from a slingshot out of the air with a smaller pencil (try it!) was aborted years ago because it DOESN"T WORK, the boys, mostly, at PNAC still think it's a grand idea. They have lots going on this front like the MDA and NMD. They keep claiming success also. Too bad they have to put radio transmitters on the "enemy" missiles in order to hit them.
These are just a few of the overwhelming amount of suggested actions, developed by PNAC, that the administration has seen fit to undertake. Go to PNAC's website, or the website of the PNAC watchdog, to see just how imporatnt these lunatics are to this administration.
More later.
Yo Joe! Time To Go!
So.... who do you want to win the Connecticut primary between incumbent Joe "Bush-Loves-Me" Lieberman and Ned "New-Kid-On-The-Block" Lamont? The U.S is watching this race with great anticipation. (As of yesterday, many polls had Lamont ahead by about 10 points). The central issue seems to be the right-leaning Democratic Leadership Council versus the grass roots supported Lamont, but the party establishment wants Americans to believe it's about nothing more than punishing the incumbent for a few missteps. However, the choice should be absolutely clear to anyone who believes in the democratic process and the choice is....Ned Lamont.
Being that Lamont is an unproven politician who believes it is time for a change and who has neither serious skeletons in his closet nor other serious strikes against him, we must look at Lieberman's actions. The fact is that Joe has messed up royally of late and it is ALWAYS better to try the new than stay with the old when the old is a politician who is now totally unpredictable. In fact, he is a complete wild card whose future actions can no longer be safely anticipated, contrary to his claims about being a good Democrat in the past. But let's take a look.
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC): The Clinton-founded DLC functions as a rival institution to the DNC (now more than ever with the election of Howard Dean) with the goal of moving the party to the "center," i.e. center right. The DLC is far too intertwined with corporations and laissez faire style government to effectively represent
the interests of the average American Democrat and, economically speaking, there is little difference between DLC Democrats and Repuglicans. Joe is a DLC Democrat which is why President Clinton is out stumping for him. He actually served as the DLC chair. Establishment Dems are backing him through orgs such as the DSCC and DCCC (which has been recruiting candidates that are pro-war and "centrist"). Remember NAFTA? Joe supported that.
The War(s): Joe has consistently sided with the cabal on issues concerning military action in the Middle East, going so far as to question the loyalty of Democrats who oppose it, against the will of his constituents. In addition, Joe's sentiments concerning Israel are well-known and it seems that he has jumped on board with the Neo-Cons PNAC agenda. Americans should question the loyalty of any politician who would put American lives in danger for their own ideological beliefs. The fact that one of his staffers apparently saw fit to chide Jewish-Americans for supporting Lamont speaks volumes.
Independent Joe?: One reason is enough to send Joe home; his declaration that if he loses the democratic primary he will run as an Independent. What is he thinking? The problem is that Joe is so cozy with Bushco. that he believes he will get a sizable portion of the Republican vote. In addition, Joe is so "centrist" that he will pick up some Independents and conservative Dems. But does he think he can win this way? We should seriously doubt this strategy's effectiveness or his belief that it will work. The most likely outcome is that Joe will split the Democratic vote enough for a Republican to win it. Is this Joe's real plan? Is he so convinced of his God-given right to pretend to represent the interests of voters in Connecticut that he would sabotage the election? Or is this a ploy to blackmail pragmatic Dems into giving him another term?
Attitude: Joe has shown nothing but contempt for his challenger. He apparently thinks it is his seat and no one else has a right to vie for it. This can be demonstrated by his campaign strategy as of late that seems to be orchestrated more by Karl Rove then any Democrat. Lieberman's attacks on Lamont have no substance. They have been characterized by personal attacks on both Ned and his supporters. He attacked Lamont for being a millionaire and accused him of trying to by the election, although Ned asked him to agree to cap donations and expenditures. Besides the DLC, DSCC and DCCC could easily outspend Lamont if necessary. But, says Joe, Lamont has no political experience. The point? Lots of candidates have little or no experience and lots of experience is not necessarily always a plus. He has refused to answer campaign questions and, initially, refused to debate. No politician should ever believe he or she has the right to hold office in a democracy.
There are many other problems with Joe's performance, but the point should be clear: Joe's actions, whether taken individually or together, are more than enough for the voters of Connecticut to desire new leadership. Moreover, all voters should take into account the DLC v. DNC element. The DLC is a blight on the party and we need to start removing its memebrs from office everywhere.
Being that Lamont is an unproven politician who believes it is time for a change and who has neither serious skeletons in his closet nor other serious strikes against him, we must look at Lieberman's actions. The fact is that Joe has messed up royally of late and it is ALWAYS better to try the new than stay with the old when the old is a politician who is now totally unpredictable. In fact, he is a complete wild card whose future actions can no longer be safely anticipated, contrary to his claims about being a good Democrat in the past. But let's take a look.
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC): The Clinton-founded DLC functions as a rival institution to the DNC (now more than ever with the election of Howard Dean) with the goal of moving the party to the "center," i.e. center right. The DLC is far too intertwined with corporations and laissez faire style government to effectively represent
the interests of the average American Democrat and, economically speaking, there is little difference between DLC Democrats and Repuglicans. Joe is a DLC Democrat which is why President Clinton is out stumping for him. He actually served as the DLC chair. Establishment Dems are backing him through orgs such as the DSCC and DCCC (which has been recruiting candidates that are pro-war and "centrist"). Remember NAFTA? Joe supported that.
The War(s): Joe has consistently sided with the cabal on issues concerning military action in the Middle East, going so far as to question the loyalty of Democrats who oppose it, against the will of his constituents. In addition, Joe's sentiments concerning Israel are well-known and it seems that he has jumped on board with the Neo-Cons PNAC agenda. Americans should question the loyalty of any politician who would put American lives in danger for their own ideological beliefs. The fact that one of his staffers apparently saw fit to chide Jewish-Americans for supporting Lamont speaks volumes.
Independent Joe?: One reason is enough to send Joe home; his declaration that if he loses the democratic primary he will run as an Independent. What is he thinking? The problem is that Joe is so cozy with Bushco. that he believes he will get a sizable portion of the Republican vote. In addition, Joe is so "centrist" that he will pick up some Independents and conservative Dems. But does he think he can win this way? We should seriously doubt this strategy's effectiveness or his belief that it will work. The most likely outcome is that Joe will split the Democratic vote enough for a Republican to win it. Is this Joe's real plan? Is he so convinced of his God-given right to pretend to represent the interests of voters in Connecticut that he would sabotage the election? Or is this a ploy to blackmail pragmatic Dems into giving him another term?
Attitude: Joe has shown nothing but contempt for his challenger. He apparently thinks it is his seat and no one else has a right to vie for it. This can be demonstrated by his campaign strategy as of late that seems to be orchestrated more by Karl Rove then any Democrat. Lieberman's attacks on Lamont have no substance. They have been characterized by personal attacks on both Ned and his supporters. He attacked Lamont for being a millionaire and accused him of trying to by the election, although Ned asked him to agree to cap donations and expenditures. Besides the DLC, DSCC and DCCC could easily outspend Lamont if necessary. But, says Joe, Lamont has no political experience. The point? Lots of candidates have little or no experience and lots of experience is not necessarily always a plus. He has refused to answer campaign questions and, initially, refused to debate. No politician should ever believe he or she has the right to hold office in a democracy.
There are many other problems with Joe's performance, but the point should be clear: Joe's actions, whether taken individually or together, are more than enough for the voters of Connecticut to desire new leadership. Moreover, all voters should take into account the DLC v. DNC element. The DLC is a blight on the party and we need to start removing its memebrs from office everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
