Some of you are going to disagree with me on this one.
Let me first state I am not a racist - this is not an issue of ethnicity.
There are many different views regarding the unchecked illegal immigrant problems in this country. There are estimated to be more than 11 million illegal aliens residing in the United States, most from Central and South American countries, the majority of those from Mexico.
Some Americans are not alarmed by this and argue that despite being illegal, these immigrant workers are good for our economy, that they do the work Americans don't want to do. However many who take this stance directly benefit from the cheap labor provided by these workers.
Those who disagree with them say illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from legitimate American citizens and drive down wages by working for less than is required to meet basic needs and support a family. They point out that these workers are not only harvesting crops, mowing lawns, working as housekeepers and other menial tasks but that they are also taking construction, manufacturing and other labor jobs away from Americans who formerly held these jobs. They say illegal immigrants are willing to work for much less because they share expenses by sharing vehicles and living expenses, several families living in the same house and riding eight people to an automobile (which is environmentally sound but not safe or legal). Those against this flood of illegal immigrants adamantly declare this way of life is not the American dream.
Others who support immigrants argue that accepting immigrants is what America is all about and that our country was founded and built by immigrants. They say we should receive these immigrants with Christian compassion and that this is our heritage. They point to the inscription on the Statue of Liberty which reads, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
But those against this surge of illegal immigrants say, yes this is the way our country was founded, but that was then and this is now and these immigrants are not legal. They point out that we as Americans continue to fulfill our time-honored commitment to immigrants under our current immigration law that allows for an annual total of 675,000 legal immigrants, this level to consist of: 480,000 family-sponsored; 140,000 employment-based; and 55,000 “diversity immigrants.” The limited number of aliens who may be issued visas or otherwise provided nonimmigrant status under the temporary worker category is limited to 65,000 annually but those numbers are being exceeded by hundreds of thousands.
There are other views for and against the broken borders and endless flow of immigrants into this country - but most are against.
Those against point out that most illegal immigrants are paid in cash by unscrupulous employers who take advantage of cheap labor and therefore these illegal employees have no bank accounts and do not pay taxes. They also charge that since these workers and their families do not have health insurance or pay taxes they are straining social programs including health care and our public education system because as illegals they only draw from these systems and don't invest in them with tax dollars. Also much of the money they earn is not pumped back into the economy but instead is sent back to family members in their home countries.
Regardless of what your views are regarding the illegal immigration and unsecured borders controversy, here are a few things you should consider.
These are our rules.
If you’re a citizen of a foreign country, in most cases you’ll need a visa to enter the United States.
A visa doesn’t permit entry to the U.S., however. A visa simply indicates that your application has been reviewed by a U.S. consular officer at an American embassy or consulate, and that the officer has determined you’re eligible to enter the country for a specific purpose. Consular affairs are the responsibility of the U.S. Department of State. A visa allows you to travel to the United States as far as the port of entry (airport or land border crossing) and ask the immigration officer to allow you to enter the country. Only the immigration officer has the authority to permit you to enter the United States. He or she decides how long you can stay for any particular visit. Immigration matters are the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
There are two categories of U.S. visas: immigrant and nonimmigrant. Immigrant visas are for people who intend to live permanently in the U.S. Nonimmigrant visas are for people with permanent residence outside the U.S. but who wish to be in the U.S. on a temporary basis – for tourism, medical treatment, business, temporary work or study.
I have questions.
Why have immigration laws if you don't intend to enforce them?
Why have borders if we don't intend to protect and secure them?
The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for both.
Why have a Department of Homeland Security if it allows porous, unsecured borders and if it does not enforce immigration laws and does nothing to protect our country against illegal entry? (You're doing a heck of a job Cherty!)
One of the protesters in the huge protest march in California on Saturday told the Reuters news agency that the proposed federal legislation now before congress that would crack down on undocumented immigrants is wrong, "because this is a country for everybody who wants to live a better life and this is a free world".
If this is a country for "everybody" who wants to lead a "better life" then we should be prepared for an overwhelming influx of people, mostly uneducated and most who can't or don't want to speak English. Millions and millions of people from other nations, and not just those in this hemisphere, also want to lead a "better life". The only hurdle they have to overcome is to get into Mexico. Getting from there into the US is comparatively easy.
When we consider preparing for this new, heavily increasing number of immigrants we are not talking about just those from South and Central America. All other nations are watching as our neighbors to the south force their way into our country, streaming across the borders by the thousands each and every day.
They see and hear the stories that, even though these immigrants are here illegally, Americans are so compassionate that these illegals are receiving healthcare and welfare assistance without paying for it.
These people see and hear how the illegal immigrants are now being considered for citizenship without meeting naturalization requirements.
They see and hear how these illegals are being offered jobs and even welcomed by American businesses that are quick to take advantage of cheap labor by those who want a piece of the action here in the land of plenty.
How long will that "better life" being enjoyed by Americans last if unchecked immigration continues to be drive down wages and our social systems are stressed to the point of breaking?
Mexico has strict immigration laws and it enforces them. All foreigners entering the country, except in a case of a tourist, must obtain an immigration permit and have their name entered in the National Foreigner’s Registry. If a tourist, you must apply for an immigration permit after having paid the fees at the port of entrance.Once you are authorized you have up to 180 days, then you must leave the country. Mexico is serious about protecting its borders and enforcing immigration policy, yet they are critical of the United States for wanting to do the same.
By the way, for all of you out there who grouch that immigrants should all be required to speak English, guess under whose presidency the English language requirement was removed (waived) from the current naturalization law? No, it was not under Bill Clinton! It was done in 1990. Figure it out.
Then guess which president wants to give amnesty to those 11 million illegals who are here now and establish a broad guest worker program to further encourage immigrants to breach our borders.
Unfortunately, there are many Democrats as well as Republicans among this group that want to allow unrestricted numbers of immigrants to enter our workforce. Many building contractors, large farmers, service companies and small business owners like the idea because this source of cheap labor helps increase their profit margins. And don't forget those who oppose unions and those who can afford housekeepers, gardeners and other servant level employees. They all love the idea.
Also driving this issue is the ever-growing Hispanic vote. Elected representatives, both Republican and Democratic, are attempting to work this issue to their advantage, their only concern being how to win the Hispanic vote without alienating their party base and their corporate sponsors. They aren't considering what is best for our nation, only what might destroy their chance to be re-elected to office and high on that list of concerns is appeasing the corporate contributors to their campaigns.
Is it not enough for corporations that hundreds of thousands of American Jobs were transferred to Mexico and other Latin American countries as a result of free trade agreements? Now these same displaced workers are being asked to share the remaining American jobs with a flood of immigrants from the same countries that ended up with those jobs?
This is a "free world" the immigrants say in their defense.
That's odd because I am not free to enter any other nation without a valid passport and once there, even when I enter legally, I can't freely get a job or freely stay as long as I wish and freely break the laws of that country. I am not free to get healthcare and welfare assistance in their countries nor am I free to work a job in those countries. Most other countries protect their workers and will not allow even those foreigners who reside there full time to take jobs away from their citizens.
On Saturday, the 500,000 Hispanic protestors who marched in Los Angeles, the 300,000 in Chicago and thousands of others in marches across the country were protesting proposed federal legislation that would crack down on undocumented immigrants, penalize those who help them and give them jobs, and build a security wall along the U.S. southern border. It is unfair they say to prevent people from entering this country who want to share in the American dream.
It may be the American dream they want to share but it was the flags of their home countries the protestors proudly carried in defiance, Mexico's flag being the most prominent. In contrast there were only a handful of American flags even though many of the protestors were Hispanic-Americans. It just seems obstinate to me to for those who entered this country illegally to insist that legislation be passed giving them amnesty while proudly declaring their allegiance to a foreign nation by carrying the flag of that country. They are not a guest soccer team here to compete against Americans - they are non-citizen law breakers.
Hispanics over the years have contributed much to our country and we are a better nation as a result. They are a beautiful, family oriented and religiously devout people. I admire their work ethic and especially their political activism and ability to organize and turn out protestors. If only the rest of America were as passionate about their rights as these Hispanics we wouldn't have the inept and corrupt corporate led government we have today.
It was the Santa Clara Case in 1886 that, due to a clerical error, bestowed the same rights held by individual citizens to corporations. The world has been in decline ever since.
Every day that passes makes me wonder just who this country belongs to.
When you decide to join with me in taking it back - let me know.
Gary
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Thursday, March 23, 2006
In The "I's" of the King
Have you ever noticed how George W Bush is always speaking to the public like they're little children and he is the stern, learned and wise father - and his megalomanic use of the word "I" ?
Much to America's shame, Bush lacks an understanding of the role of the president and the executive branch of government in a democracy. Bush doesn't view himself as a representative of the people, someone appointed by the people to do their bidding. He arrogantly considers himself an absolute monarch, as if he ascended to a throne. He constantly uses the word "I".
For example in this statement made yesterday regarding the invasion of Iraq: "I'm going to say it again: if I didn't believe we could succeed, I wouldn't be there," he said at the press conference in the White House press briefing room. "I wouldn't put those kids there."
Let's parse that statement.
He first says, "I'm" going to say it again" as if he is someone who has complete authority and dominion over other's behavior. This is disrespectful of the media and the American public he is speaking to, the people he reports to. Underneath he is saying, look, you're not paying attention and it's making me angry. Either you get this right or I'm going to come down on you. When growing up, have you ever had your mother or father say in a stern voice to you, "I'm going to say it again"?
Secondly, he makes the statement, " . . if "I" didn't believe we could succeed,".
This is really arrogant. By saying this he has taken full authority away from congress and the American people. He's saying he and he alone will decide whether or not this nation will embark down a path and he alone has the authority to decide to stay on that path. The polls show that a clear majority American people think we should leave Iraq, that it was wrong to invade and it's a failure, but Bush is telling us that he will decide, not us.
Thirdly and startlingly he states, "I" wouldn't be there", talking about being in Iraq. He doesn't say "we wouldn't be there".
Bush isn't there! He is not on the ground in Iraq - but our troops are. He is not facing death or being maimed and crippled for life, but our young men and women are. None of his family or family members of his warhawk administration are exposed to the horrors of war but the children, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers of the average Americans are. Yet Bush says, "I" wouldn't be there" not "our troops wouldn't be there".
This is total disrespect for our military leaders and our troops. It is clear by this statement he identifies with complete and total dictatorial power over this nation. He says "I" wouldn't be there". By saying this it clearly means that he believes he is in a league with the great emperors, kings, and commanders of history, those that made decisions to invade other countries to extend their empires and had total dominion over their subjects and their vast armies. But those were not democracies. In a democracy, presidents, even as commander-in-chiefs, do not have that unbridled power.
Then lastly he says, "I" wouldn't put those kids there."
Here again he takes on the role of a ruler - not a president. Again he could have said "we", referring to the executive branch and congress, but he chooses to use the word "I". Subliminally he's saying your kids and their lives belong to me. "I" make the decision which of you sacrifices and which of you doesn't. And he says "those kids", because he doesn't identify with them as "our kids". "Those kids" are just expendable kids to be used to further designs of corporate empire just like employees are "employed" to make corporate leaders wealthy, not to provide for their families and to share in the wealth of the company. He said "those kids" because these are not "his kids" or those of his administration or those of congress. One thing is clear, Bush wouldn't put "his kids" there.
This my friends is power gone mad. This is a delusional megalomaniac who thinks he has the powers of a king.
Bush, who was raised as a privileged son of wealthy and powerful parents, is accustomed to using the word "I" since he was a small child, as in "I" deserve, and "I" want, and "I" should have and "I" am due. Also, "I" am not responsible and "don't you know who "I" am"?
Significantly, when it's appropriate to use the word "I" he fails to do it.
He hasn't said "I" knowingly lied to you about the reasons we invaded Iraq. He hasn't said "I" didn't plan carefully enough before putting "those kids" in harms way and he hasn't said "I" apologize for taking this nation into an ill-advised war.
He hasn't said "I" have made mistakes and "I" apologize to the American people for the death and maiming of those brave men and women who are not fighting in defense of our nation but instead "I" used them to invade a sovereign nation to secure a strategic foothold on the middle east's oil reserves.
He has not said "I" apologize for destroying America's goodwill with other nations and driving this country into deep debt that will require your sacrifice and that of your children for year's to come.
He has not said "I" apologize for detaining and imprisoning American citizens, ignoring their constitutional rights, and for the damage to America's image from torturing prisoners held in Iraq and in off-shore prisons.
He has not said "I" apologize for breaking the law and eaves dropping on private citizens without going though the legal procedure.
He has not said "I" apologize for my administration's poor response to Hurricane Katrina and the people of the gulf coast who lost family and their homes.
He has not said "I" apologize that when it came time to serve my country in the military "I" used the power and privilege of my father to avoid serving in harm's way and then did not fully complete my military obligation.
Bush says he is a devout Christian. It makes one wonder if he has ever prayed, "I" ask for your forgiveness", or has he prayed sincerely "I" am a poor miserable sinner and not worthy of your blessings".
Gary
Much to America's shame, Bush lacks an understanding of the role of the president and the executive branch of government in a democracy. Bush doesn't view himself as a representative of the people, someone appointed by the people to do their bidding. He arrogantly considers himself an absolute monarch, as if he ascended to a throne. He constantly uses the word "I".
For example in this statement made yesterday regarding the invasion of Iraq: "I'm going to say it again: if I didn't believe we could succeed, I wouldn't be there," he said at the press conference in the White House press briefing room. "I wouldn't put those kids there."
Let's parse that statement.
He first says, "I'm" going to say it again" as if he is someone who has complete authority and dominion over other's behavior. This is disrespectful of the media and the American public he is speaking to, the people he reports to. Underneath he is saying, look, you're not paying attention and it's making me angry. Either you get this right or I'm going to come down on you. When growing up, have you ever had your mother or father say in a stern voice to you, "I'm going to say it again"?
Secondly, he makes the statement, " . . if "I" didn't believe we could succeed,".
This is really arrogant. By saying this he has taken full authority away from congress and the American people. He's saying he and he alone will decide whether or not this nation will embark down a path and he alone has the authority to decide to stay on that path. The polls show that a clear majority American people think we should leave Iraq, that it was wrong to invade and it's a failure, but Bush is telling us that he will decide, not us.
Thirdly and startlingly he states, "I" wouldn't be there", talking about being in Iraq. He doesn't say "we wouldn't be there".
Bush isn't there! He is not on the ground in Iraq - but our troops are. He is not facing death or being maimed and crippled for life, but our young men and women are. None of his family or family members of his warhawk administration are exposed to the horrors of war but the children, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers of the average Americans are. Yet Bush says, "I" wouldn't be there" not "our troops wouldn't be there".
This is total disrespect for our military leaders and our troops. It is clear by this statement he identifies with complete and total dictatorial power over this nation. He says "I" wouldn't be there". By saying this it clearly means that he believes he is in a league with the great emperors, kings, and commanders of history, those that made decisions to invade other countries to extend their empires and had total dominion over their subjects and their vast armies. But those were not democracies. In a democracy, presidents, even as commander-in-chiefs, do not have that unbridled power.
Then lastly he says, "I" wouldn't put those kids there."
Here again he takes on the role of a ruler - not a president. Again he could have said "we", referring to the executive branch and congress, but he chooses to use the word "I". Subliminally he's saying your kids and their lives belong to me. "I" make the decision which of you sacrifices and which of you doesn't. And he says "those kids", because he doesn't identify with them as "our kids". "Those kids" are just expendable kids to be used to further designs of corporate empire just like employees are "employed" to make corporate leaders wealthy, not to provide for their families and to share in the wealth of the company. He said "those kids" because these are not "his kids" or those of his administration or those of congress. One thing is clear, Bush wouldn't put "his kids" there.
This my friends is power gone mad. This is a delusional megalomaniac who thinks he has the powers of a king.
Bush, who was raised as a privileged son of wealthy and powerful parents, is accustomed to using the word "I" since he was a small child, as in "I" deserve, and "I" want, and "I" should have and "I" am due. Also, "I" am not responsible and "don't you know who "I" am"?
Significantly, when it's appropriate to use the word "I" he fails to do it.
He hasn't said "I" knowingly lied to you about the reasons we invaded Iraq. He hasn't said "I" didn't plan carefully enough before putting "those kids" in harms way and he hasn't said "I" apologize for taking this nation into an ill-advised war.
He hasn't said "I" have made mistakes and "I" apologize to the American people for the death and maiming of those brave men and women who are not fighting in defense of our nation but instead "I" used them to invade a sovereign nation to secure a strategic foothold on the middle east's oil reserves.
He has not said "I" apologize for destroying America's goodwill with other nations and driving this country into deep debt that will require your sacrifice and that of your children for year's to come.
He has not said "I" apologize for detaining and imprisoning American citizens, ignoring their constitutional rights, and for the damage to America's image from torturing prisoners held in Iraq and in off-shore prisons.
He has not said "I" apologize for breaking the law and eaves dropping on private citizens without going though the legal procedure.
He has not said "I" apologize for my administration's poor response to Hurricane Katrina and the people of the gulf coast who lost family and their homes.
He has not said "I" apologize that when it came time to serve my country in the military "I" used the power and privilege of my father to avoid serving in harm's way and then did not fully complete my military obligation.
Bush says he is a devout Christian. It makes one wonder if he has ever prayed, "I" ask for your forgiveness", or has he prayed sincerely "I" am a poor miserable sinner and not worthy of your blessings".
Gary
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Facing The Truth
We are not leaving Iraq - or Afghanistan - ever!
The slippery slope of empire is coated with oil and we are sliding towards a world conflict of grand proportions.
The real unspoken reason Bush and the neocons took us into Iraq and Afghanistan is complete control of the middle east oil and natural gas reserves. Remaining the world's number one superpower and assuring unchallengeable world supremacy is the goal of the neocon corporatists. In their view, whoever controls the earth's biggest and most easily extracted oil reserves controls the world. Plain and simple! The reasons previously given, the threat of WMD, giving Iraqi's their freedom by removing the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, establishing democracy, and chasing down Osama bin Laden and the terrorists are all pure hogwash.
Without any real progress towards development of alternative energy sources, the future of America's dominance as a world power is dependant on adequate, uninterruptible oil supplies. In our present condition, a reduction by only ten to twenty percent of our oil needs would throw this nation into a chaotic downward spiral from which we would be a long time recovering - if ever. Our world would be turned upside down. During this period of chaos and recovery some other nation or a coalition could step up and take over the number one position of power.
The neocon theory is that if we had stood by and done nothing Iraq and other middle east countries would have eventually either aligned themselves with or would have been taken over by China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan or others considered hostile towards and resentful of America. Our nation could then be easily held hostage by our addiction to oil.
Other countries are in much the same situation and they see this coming. They will not stand docilely by while we grab up the oil supply and they will also not be denied the right to develop nuclear power both to supplement energy needs and to develop nuclear arsenals to protect against takeover.
Right now many of these countries are very likely feeding and financing the insurgency much in the way the US interests fed the Afghan warlords who resisted Russia's attempt to take over Afghanistan. Russia's interest in Afghanistan was the same as ours. Everyone is watching to see if we embroil ourselves with Iran and overtax our military as we sink deeper into debt.
There is no easy solution to this problem of energy needs. World conflict will likely increase and become more violent as a result. Large corporate masters may eventually take over all governments and large international mergers will likely take place held together by what amounts to corporate owned and financed private armies that operate under the flags of sovereign nations.
I can envision combined entities such as a South American conglomerate with hegemony over all of South and Central America. A likely merger between Canada, the US and Great Brittan is possible. Anyone can use their imagination to determine what other mergers and coalitions might evolve as a result.
The world's oil and coal supply is finite. Eventually alternative energy sources will have to be relied on if we are to survive. If the United States, Russia, Japan, and China among other technologically advance countries would take all the money and effort spent on wars protecting oil reserves and defense buildup and instead direct it towards developing alternative energy technology - the world could be saved. If simultaneously they made an effort to provide for the basic needs and social welfare of all the world's poor, most conflict including terrorism could be brought under control.
I saw Paul Hackett, the Ohio Democrat who was sabotaged by his own party, on Hardball last night and he articulated the same message as to how terrorism must be addressed. He said all the armies in the world can't kill terrorism, that only a combination of efforts to correct social ills, establishing human rights and addressing economic issues would solve the problem.
It's not a simple issue and all terrorists are not poor or uneducated. Indeed those that committed the atrocities of 9/11 were not poor or uneducated but they most certainly were rabid conservatives and idealists not unlike the neocons who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq. But everyone can understand that poor, uneducated and oppressed people, those subjected to slave labor or those with no jobs and little means to feed their families, will most often resort to or become victims of corruption and violence. They are also easily manipulated to hate and easily recruited to become terrorists and suicide bombers. What's to lose?
Gary
The slippery slope of empire is coated with oil and we are sliding towards a world conflict of grand proportions.
The real unspoken reason Bush and the neocons took us into Iraq and Afghanistan is complete control of the middle east oil and natural gas reserves. Remaining the world's number one superpower and assuring unchallengeable world supremacy is the goal of the neocon corporatists. In their view, whoever controls the earth's biggest and most easily extracted oil reserves controls the world. Plain and simple! The reasons previously given, the threat of WMD, giving Iraqi's their freedom by removing the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, establishing democracy, and chasing down Osama bin Laden and the terrorists are all pure hogwash.
Without any real progress towards development of alternative energy sources, the future of America's dominance as a world power is dependant on adequate, uninterruptible oil supplies. In our present condition, a reduction by only ten to twenty percent of our oil needs would throw this nation into a chaotic downward spiral from which we would be a long time recovering - if ever. Our world would be turned upside down. During this period of chaos and recovery some other nation or a coalition could step up and take over the number one position of power.
The neocon theory is that if we had stood by and done nothing Iraq and other middle east countries would have eventually either aligned themselves with or would have been taken over by China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan or others considered hostile towards and resentful of America. Our nation could then be easily held hostage by our addiction to oil.
Other countries are in much the same situation and they see this coming. They will not stand docilely by while we grab up the oil supply and they will also not be denied the right to develop nuclear power both to supplement energy needs and to develop nuclear arsenals to protect against takeover.
Right now many of these countries are very likely feeding and financing the insurgency much in the way the US interests fed the Afghan warlords who resisted Russia's attempt to take over Afghanistan. Russia's interest in Afghanistan was the same as ours. Everyone is watching to see if we embroil ourselves with Iran and overtax our military as we sink deeper into debt.
There is no easy solution to this problem of energy needs. World conflict will likely increase and become more violent as a result. Large corporate masters may eventually take over all governments and large international mergers will likely take place held together by what amounts to corporate owned and financed private armies that operate under the flags of sovereign nations.
I can envision combined entities such as a South American conglomerate with hegemony over all of South and Central America. A likely merger between Canada, the US and Great Brittan is possible. Anyone can use their imagination to determine what other mergers and coalitions might evolve as a result.
The world's oil and coal supply is finite. Eventually alternative energy sources will have to be relied on if we are to survive. If the United States, Russia, Japan, and China among other technologically advance countries would take all the money and effort spent on wars protecting oil reserves and defense buildup and instead direct it towards developing alternative energy technology - the world could be saved. If simultaneously they made an effort to provide for the basic needs and social welfare of all the world's poor, most conflict including terrorism could be brought under control.
I saw Paul Hackett, the Ohio Democrat who was sabotaged by his own party, on Hardball last night and he articulated the same message as to how terrorism must be addressed. He said all the armies in the world can't kill terrorism, that only a combination of efforts to correct social ills, establishing human rights and addressing economic issues would solve the problem.
It's not a simple issue and all terrorists are not poor or uneducated. Indeed those that committed the atrocities of 9/11 were not poor or uneducated but they most certainly were rabid conservatives and idealists not unlike the neocons who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq. But everyone can understand that poor, uneducated and oppressed people, those subjected to slave labor or those with no jobs and little means to feed their families, will most often resort to or become victims of corruption and violence. They are also easily manipulated to hate and easily recruited to become terrorists and suicide bombers. What's to lose?
Gary
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Is The Bird Flu Just Politics, Profit Scam, or Both?
I'm no conspiracy nut but I'm always suspicious of the monsters created when people are taken over by greed and lust for power. I've seen over and over how people are willing to sell their soul for money.
I'm not saying the "Avian Flu" or what's more widely known as the "bird flu" doesn't exist - apparently it does, but how much of a threat is it - really? Only 68 people have reportedly died from the dreaded disease in all of Asia and Europe. Does that sound like a pandemic when obviously thousands or millions of people have been exposed? Many epidemiologists question the danger of this new threat-du-jour.
And Nothing about the current effort to cultivate and profit from a widespread medical panic is new. In fact, Americans suffered a similar bout of epidemic promotion 30 years ago with the "swine flu" debacle. Have we failed to remember that? That one also had political implications as this one does. And do you recall the "Legionnaires scare" ? The news media loves a good scary story and political advisors know this. Terrorists, WMD's, flu pandemics, nuclear holocaust, everything but the biggest and most ominous threat which is real - global warming.
Have you heard how many shots of the bird flu drug Tamiflu will be bought and stored by our government with your tax dollars to prepare for this "pandemic"? The push is on for the US government to begin spending $2 billion to purchase 20 million doses of an anti-viral drug called Tamiflu, a drug whose effectiveness appears to be, at best, "questionable." And have you considered that when and if you become frightened enough by our government and the media into getting your shot how much it will cost you - even though you have already paid for it once with your tax dollars? And even if they give it to you free, which is doubtful, more than one shot reportedly will be required. How much profit is going to be made by the pharmaceuticals and their shareholders when the government makes this huge purchase and hundreds of millions of people are convinced they are in danger of dying if they don't get the shots? And how many people will have adverse reactions to the vaccine and become crippled or even die as a result? Probably more here in the US than will actually die from the bird flu worldwide over several years.
And if you don't think adverse reactions to this drug is possible, this pandemic scare and the anticipated use of the drug Tamiflu has prompted the Bush Whitehouse to push for and justify regulation rollbacks and liability protection for the already pampered drug industry before the drug is administered. Protecting the hugely profitable pharmaceutical industry is good politics for those who benefit from those profits - especially those in office.
Do you recall a similar scare in 1976, when a military recruit in New Jersey died from a flu that experts speculated might be the "swine flu" virus of 1918 pandemic fame. Donald Rumsfeld, who was then and is again the nation's secretary of defense, made the imminent "swine flu" a political issue to add some spark to the campaign of President Ford, an uncharismatic candidate that needed help to oppose the challenge by Democrat Jimmy Carter. At Rumsfeld's urging, the administration would ensure that "every man, woman and child" was vaccinated. Huge amounts of vaccine were produced and distributed quickly. This was designed to increase voter sentiment for Ford - and perhaps huge profits for shareholders.
They had a "swine flu" vaccine which suspicious pig farmers had refused to touch, fearful it might wipe out their pigs. The manufacturers had only tried to get $80 million from the pig farmers; but when the pig farmers balked at this sale, they turned to the other market, humans. The President of the United States, Gerald Ford, was enlisted to persuade the public to undergo a national vaccination campaign. The moving force behind the scheme, in addition to being what was thought to be a great political move to strengthen Ford's popularity, was a $135 million windfall profit for the major drug manufacturers. On April I5, 1976, Congress passed Public Law 94-266, which provided $135 million of taxpayers' funds to pay for a national swine flu inoculation campaign. HEW distributed the vaccine to state and local health agencies on a national basis for inoculation, at no charge..
Hardly had the swine flu campaign been completed than the reports of the casualties began to pour in. Within a few months, claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis from the swine flu vaccine. But there was no "swine flu" pandemic, it was panic over nothing. But an amazing amount of money was made by a pharmaceutical company and its shareholders at the expense and suffering of thousands of people who had adverse reactions to this inoculation. It is now estimated that some 3675 people suffered paralysis from the vaccine.
My family didn't get the shots. - did yours?
Today we have the "chicken flu", or as it's now called the "bird flu". A pharmaceutical company, Gilead Sciences in California, the company that developed the bird flu vaccine Tamiflu, has leased the manufacturing and distribution rights to the giant pharmaceutical Roche. Gilead's stock was selling for $7.00 a share in late 2001. It has since split twice and now sells for over $60 per share. If you had invested $7,000 in Gilead in December 2001 it would be worth over $180,000 today - less than five years. Guess who just sold over $5 million of Gilead stock? Amazingly, it's Donald Rumsfeld. Doesn't it make you wonder which company developed the vaccine for the swine flu in 1976 and if Rumsfeld held any of that stock? Like Cheney once chaired Haliburton, Rumsfeld chaired Gilead until 2001 when he joined the Bush administration.
Mr Rumsfeld was on the board of Gilead from 1988 to 2001, and was its chairman from 1997. He then left to join the Bush administration, but retained a huge shareholding and even after his recent sale has much, much more remaining stock in Gilead. Just what role do you think Rumsfeld may have in promoting the scare of "bird flu" today as he apparently did in 1976 regarding "swine flu"?
Reported in the Independent on Sunday the Pentagon said: "Secretary Rumsfeld has no relationship with Gilead Sciences, Inc beyond his investments in the company. When he became Secretary of Defense in January 2001, divestiture of his investment in Gilead was not required by the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Office of Government Ethics or the Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office.Upon taking office, he recused himself from participating in any particular matter when the matter would directly and predictably affect his financial interest in Gilead Sciences."
It's not too difficult to believe that Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is pushing the "bird flu" pandemic scare as hard as he can. Just as he had Ford do in 1976, he's got George W Bush scaring people by stating "That's when it gets dangerous, when it goes bird-person-person." And of course we all know we can believe Bush - he's never tried to get us to believe anything that was untrue.
These people are absolutely disgusting and reprehensible. The quest for empire has no moral boundaries.
Gary
Check these sites out for more on Rumsfeld and his connection to this issue. The first report is one of the best. There are many more.
http://uncapitalist.com/blog/?itemid=856
http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=45&db=1&C0=1
http://www.whale.to/a/swine_fluq.html
I'm not saying the "Avian Flu" or what's more widely known as the "bird flu" doesn't exist - apparently it does, but how much of a threat is it - really? Only 68 people have reportedly died from the dreaded disease in all of Asia and Europe. Does that sound like a pandemic when obviously thousands or millions of people have been exposed? Many epidemiologists question the danger of this new threat-du-jour.
And Nothing about the current effort to cultivate and profit from a widespread medical panic is new. In fact, Americans suffered a similar bout of epidemic promotion 30 years ago with the "swine flu" debacle. Have we failed to remember that? That one also had political implications as this one does. And do you recall the "Legionnaires scare" ? The news media loves a good scary story and political advisors know this. Terrorists, WMD's, flu pandemics, nuclear holocaust, everything but the biggest and most ominous threat which is real - global warming.
Have you heard how many shots of the bird flu drug Tamiflu will be bought and stored by our government with your tax dollars to prepare for this "pandemic"? The push is on for the US government to begin spending $2 billion to purchase 20 million doses of an anti-viral drug called Tamiflu, a drug whose effectiveness appears to be, at best, "questionable." And have you considered that when and if you become frightened enough by our government and the media into getting your shot how much it will cost you - even though you have already paid for it once with your tax dollars? And even if they give it to you free, which is doubtful, more than one shot reportedly will be required. How much profit is going to be made by the pharmaceuticals and their shareholders when the government makes this huge purchase and hundreds of millions of people are convinced they are in danger of dying if they don't get the shots? And how many people will have adverse reactions to the vaccine and become crippled or even die as a result? Probably more here in the US than will actually die from the bird flu worldwide over several years.
And if you don't think adverse reactions to this drug is possible, this pandemic scare and the anticipated use of the drug Tamiflu has prompted the Bush Whitehouse to push for and justify regulation rollbacks and liability protection for the already pampered drug industry before the drug is administered. Protecting the hugely profitable pharmaceutical industry is good politics for those who benefit from those profits - especially those in office.
Do you recall a similar scare in 1976, when a military recruit in New Jersey died from a flu that experts speculated might be the "swine flu" virus of 1918 pandemic fame. Donald Rumsfeld, who was then and is again the nation's secretary of defense, made the imminent "swine flu" a political issue to add some spark to the campaign of President Ford, an uncharismatic candidate that needed help to oppose the challenge by Democrat Jimmy Carter. At Rumsfeld's urging, the administration would ensure that "every man, woman and child" was vaccinated. Huge amounts of vaccine were produced and distributed quickly. This was designed to increase voter sentiment for Ford - and perhaps huge profits for shareholders.
They had a "swine flu" vaccine which suspicious pig farmers had refused to touch, fearful it might wipe out their pigs. The manufacturers had only tried to get $80 million from the pig farmers; but when the pig farmers balked at this sale, they turned to the other market, humans. The President of the United States, Gerald Ford, was enlisted to persuade the public to undergo a national vaccination campaign. The moving force behind the scheme, in addition to being what was thought to be a great political move to strengthen Ford's popularity, was a $135 million windfall profit for the major drug manufacturers. On April I5, 1976, Congress passed Public Law 94-266, which provided $135 million of taxpayers' funds to pay for a national swine flu inoculation campaign. HEW distributed the vaccine to state and local health agencies on a national basis for inoculation, at no charge..
Hardly had the swine flu campaign been completed than the reports of the casualties began to pour in. Within a few months, claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis from the swine flu vaccine. But there was no "swine flu" pandemic, it was panic over nothing. But an amazing amount of money was made by a pharmaceutical company and its shareholders at the expense and suffering of thousands of people who had adverse reactions to this inoculation. It is now estimated that some 3675 people suffered paralysis from the vaccine.
My family didn't get the shots. - did yours?
Today we have the "chicken flu", or as it's now called the "bird flu". A pharmaceutical company, Gilead Sciences in California, the company that developed the bird flu vaccine Tamiflu, has leased the manufacturing and distribution rights to the giant pharmaceutical Roche. Gilead's stock was selling for $7.00 a share in late 2001. It has since split twice and now sells for over $60 per share. If you had invested $7,000 in Gilead in December 2001 it would be worth over $180,000 today - less than five years. Guess who just sold over $5 million of Gilead stock? Amazingly, it's Donald Rumsfeld. Doesn't it make you wonder which company developed the vaccine for the swine flu in 1976 and if Rumsfeld held any of that stock? Like Cheney once chaired Haliburton, Rumsfeld chaired Gilead until 2001 when he joined the Bush administration.
Mr Rumsfeld was on the board of Gilead from 1988 to 2001, and was its chairman from 1997. He then left to join the Bush administration, but retained a huge shareholding and even after his recent sale has much, much more remaining stock in Gilead. Just what role do you think Rumsfeld may have in promoting the scare of "bird flu" today as he apparently did in 1976 regarding "swine flu"?
Reported in the Independent on Sunday the Pentagon said: "Secretary Rumsfeld has no relationship with Gilead Sciences, Inc beyond his investments in the company. When he became Secretary of Defense in January 2001, divestiture of his investment in Gilead was not required by the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Office of Government Ethics or the Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office.Upon taking office, he recused himself from participating in any particular matter when the matter would directly and predictably affect his financial interest in Gilead Sciences."
It's not too difficult to believe that Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is pushing the "bird flu" pandemic scare as hard as he can. Just as he had Ford do in 1976, he's got George W Bush scaring people by stating "That's when it gets dangerous, when it goes bird-person-person." And of course we all know we can believe Bush - he's never tried to get us to believe anything that was untrue.
These people are absolutely disgusting and reprehensible. The quest for empire has no moral boundaries.
Gary
Check these sites out for more on Rumsfeld and his connection to this issue. The first report is one of the best. There are many more.
http://uncapitalist.com/blog/?itemid=856
http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=45&db=1&C0=1
http://www.whale.to/a/swine_fluq.html
Saturday, March 11, 2006
This Land Is Our Land!
Don't you think it's about time someone show us pie charts of just how much of America is now in the hands of foreign companies and foreign governments and which ones?
Shouldn't Americans be aware of what percentage of our various industries are now owned and governed by people with different national allegiances and with different economic and security interests - foreign owned multi-national corporations that are concerned only secondarily about the welfare of the United States and perhaps even work against us?
How many foreign nations are homes to corporations that either own outright or now have controlling interest over huge blocks of American business, manufacturing and service companies? How many of these same countries at the same time do not allow American corporations or investors to own and operate like businesses in their countries?
What percentage of American industries are now controlled by foreign interests? How about the chemical industry? The insurance industry? The healthcare industry? The hotel industry? The electronics industry? The heavy manufacturing industry? The weapons industry? The food production industry?
I think these are things Americans need to know. And they need to know what industries in other countries are owned and controlled by American companies and what percentage. And in the case where our congressional representatives were complicit in passing legislation that allowed for, paved the way for and approved these acquisitions. And we need to know which elected reprehensive support this takeover of our country and in what way they may have benefited from the selling off of America. And what are the implications over the long term if this trend continues?
We need to know these things so we the people can better decide as a nation whether or not this sell-off should be occurring, and whether or not these actions compromise our military and economic security.
If Americans or others want to manufacture products in other nations rather than here in America and then sell them to Americans, there should be proper tariffs and taxes that offset the loss of American jobs and loss of revenue to American companies. Foreign owned corporations should not be allowed free access to our markets without adequate checks and balances to prevent an unfair advantage over American owned companies who employ American workers and market American manufactured goods.
Even at this writing the Governor of Indiana is attempting to sell Indiana's 157 mile East-West Toll Road to a Spanish-Australian consortium that already leases and operates the 8 mile Chicago Skyway. Foreign corporations should not be allowed to own, lease or operate our air and sea ports, our transportation systems, our rivers, our roads, our bridges, or any part of our infrastructure.
I understand this is a global economy but that should not mean America can no longer have secure borders and ports, or no longer have trade agreements with adequate provisions and restrictions that protect our workers and our companies and protect the American economy from complete foreign takeover. It should not mean that America can be divided up piecemeal and sold to the highest bidder.
This country does not belong to corporations whether American owned or not. This country does not belong to a small group of wealthy individuals whether or not they advance technology, create jobs and promote industry. This country does not belong to other nations. Other countries and their corporations have no rights greater than or even equal to the rights of any single American whether wealthy or poor.
Neither does this land belong to our government, our congress or to any ruling party. This country belongs to the people, me and you - it is our country, our land and our water. These are our ports, our airspace, our borders. Our government governs at our direction, not at the direction of corporations. Corporations exist here and do business here with our approval and for the mutual benefit of both company owners, investors and the American people - not for the exclusive benefit of corporations. Corporations shall not dictate how we run our affairs. This is a republic, a democracy, not a corporatocracy!
This land is our land!
Gary
Shouldn't Americans be aware of what percentage of our various industries are now owned and governed by people with different national allegiances and with different economic and security interests - foreign owned multi-national corporations that are concerned only secondarily about the welfare of the United States and perhaps even work against us?
How many foreign nations are homes to corporations that either own outright or now have controlling interest over huge blocks of American business, manufacturing and service companies? How many of these same countries at the same time do not allow American corporations or investors to own and operate like businesses in their countries?
What percentage of American industries are now controlled by foreign interests? How about the chemical industry? The insurance industry? The healthcare industry? The hotel industry? The electronics industry? The heavy manufacturing industry? The weapons industry? The food production industry?
I think these are things Americans need to know. And they need to know what industries in other countries are owned and controlled by American companies and what percentage. And in the case where our congressional representatives were complicit in passing legislation that allowed for, paved the way for and approved these acquisitions. And we need to know which elected reprehensive support this takeover of our country and in what way they may have benefited from the selling off of America. And what are the implications over the long term if this trend continues?
We need to know these things so we the people can better decide as a nation whether or not this sell-off should be occurring, and whether or not these actions compromise our military and economic security.
If Americans or others want to manufacture products in other nations rather than here in America and then sell them to Americans, there should be proper tariffs and taxes that offset the loss of American jobs and loss of revenue to American companies. Foreign owned corporations should not be allowed free access to our markets without adequate checks and balances to prevent an unfair advantage over American owned companies who employ American workers and market American manufactured goods.
Even at this writing the Governor of Indiana is attempting to sell Indiana's 157 mile East-West Toll Road to a Spanish-Australian consortium that already leases and operates the 8 mile Chicago Skyway. Foreign corporations should not be allowed to own, lease or operate our air and sea ports, our transportation systems, our rivers, our roads, our bridges, or any part of our infrastructure.
I understand this is a global economy but that should not mean America can no longer have secure borders and ports, or no longer have trade agreements with adequate provisions and restrictions that protect our workers and our companies and protect the American economy from complete foreign takeover. It should not mean that America can be divided up piecemeal and sold to the highest bidder.
This country does not belong to corporations whether American owned or not. This country does not belong to a small group of wealthy individuals whether or not they advance technology, create jobs and promote industry. This country does not belong to other nations. Other countries and their corporations have no rights greater than or even equal to the rights of any single American whether wealthy or poor.
Neither does this land belong to our government, our congress or to any ruling party. This country belongs to the people, me and you - it is our country, our land and our water. These are our ports, our airspace, our borders. Our government governs at our direction, not at the direction of corporations. Corporations exist here and do business here with our approval and for the mutual benefit of both company owners, investors and the American people - not for the exclusive benefit of corporations. Corporations shall not dictate how we run our affairs. This is a republic, a democracy, not a corporatocracy!
This land is our land!
Gary
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Blue Sky Thinking About Al Gore
The term "Blue Sky Thinking" has emerged to describe wide-open, un-bridled brainstorming by think tanks that are not restrained by any limits to possibilities. This method has in recent years been applied mainly to military strategy and weapons technology to come up with new ways to utilize global life and new technological advances in knowledge, not to improve global life, but to destroy it and to feed goals of empire, to create wealth for a privileged few and achieve total dominion over other nations.
What has man come to? Or perhaps more appropriately, why hasn't the evolution of man's nature and that of civilization evolved at the same rate as technology?
I like to fantasize about that pivotal moment in world history, December 11, 2000, when a politically and ideologically motivated US Supreme Court decided to usurp democracy and our constitution and award the presidency to George W Bush over Al Gore. This decision, that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors, was hastily made by a court whose conservative partisan members were eager to seize the reins of power for those who supported their ideals. If true justice was their goal they could have easily ruled to allow a full and accurate recount of votes that proves, as we now know and all evidence supports, Al Gore was the duly elected president and not George W Bush. By this act, flatly, the US Supreme Court has become corrupt and has failed our nation.
My "blue sky thinking" about Al Gore allows that, as President and in the face of security concerns over a possible terrorist attack in this country, President Gore, within a short time of taking office, would have instituted the recommendations of the 1996 Gore Commission Report on airline security that were torpedoed by lobbyists for the airline industry and the politically partisan Republican controlled congress. (See http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4532for details.)
Under consideration in this commission report were all facets of security measures, many since enacted including secure cabin doors, that would have in all likelihood prevented the 9/11 terrorist attack. There is no doubt in my mind that Gore, who was angered by the defeat of his commission's report as a result of the partisan fighting and resistance by the airline industry, would have worked to immediately established those security measures had he been allowed to take office. Also, I feel Gore would have acted immediately upon the intelligence regarding a high likelihood of a terrorist attack that Bush and the neo-cons ignored.
The condition of and exacerbation of the terrorist threat in today's world is what the Bush administration, the corporate lobbyists and the Democrat vs. Republican partisan wars have wrought on America and the world. The conflict in the middle east caused by the American preemptive invasion of another sovereign nation, and all the world fallout from America's aggression, would not have existed had Gore become president. Who knows what other positive results may have ensued under Gore's leadership?
There is no question that Gore would have relentlessly addressed the careless destruction of the world's environment and global warming. He would have inspired this nation to direct our nation's focus on energy self-sufficiency and development of new technologies to safeguard the environment. These efforts would have created new industries and new jobs, not only here but in other nations as well. His passion for protecting the earth would have caused Gore to quickly realize the ill-effects of free trade agreements that sacrifice human rights, the environment, and the economic and social welfare of the people of those nations these agreements are purportedly designed to benefit.
The truth is, free trade agreements only help one small segment of the world's people, those who control corporate wealth. Although Gore may have been a no-limits free trade junky at one time, I doubt he is now. Even as he supported free trade he only supported free trade agreements that included non-breachable environmental and workers rights protections.
In a Gore presidency all the billions and billions of dollars Bush has thrown at Afghanistan and Iraq and eventually end up swelling the bank accounts of a corrupt bunch of wealthy war profiteers would have instead been pumped into our failing education system and used to develop a national healthcare system. They would have been used for securing our borders and ports and for building up our infrastructure and our manufacturing industry. They would have been used to shore up social security and Medicare.
Because Gore would have focused us on climate change and the destructive weather patterns caused by global warming, the destruction of our coastal cities by devastating category 5 hurricanes would have been anticipated.
I can "blue sky" a flood wall around New Orleans as a result of a Gore presidency that would have prevented the catastrophe that will follow Bush into history along with chaos in the middle east and all the other problems created as a result of failed policies, inept decision-making, and the misdirected and failed leadership of his administration. Under Gore those same billions of dollars, a huge amount unaccounted for, would have been spread between the working class of this nation and the world and not stolen or unethically gained by those whose only goals are more wealth and power over others at the expense and suffering of all the world's people.
The results of a Gore presidency can only be imagined in face of the chaos and destruction of the current fanatics in power. Those who oppose Gore can imagine otherwise - but how can they imagine anything worse than what is now reality? Even those drunk on patriotism, Christianity and the illusions of divine and manifest destiny must have lucid moments when they realize the truth and see clearly that it's the worship of corporate systems, globalization and capitalism run amok that is destroying America, that is driving us toward bankruptcy and driving the entire world to the brink of economic and environmental disaster.
It's ironic the term "blue sky thinking" is being used describe efforts to further destroy our world and fill our skies with death and toxic particulate matter. Perhaps that thought process should be better termed "gray sky thinking".
Regardless, I am convinced that "blue sky thinking" would have been utilized in a totally different way if Al Gore had been allowed to take office on Jan 20, 2001.
Blue Sky Thinking under Gore would have been an effort to assure that future generations would continue to enjoy blue skies and live in a world of relative peace and harmony. A world where science and un-bridled, innovative thinking would have been used to create a better world, one where the environment was clean and life-invigorating. An environment where nations worked together in common cause to protect our earth and its people - not to figure out new ways to make war and destroy the planet - and God's most precious of all gifts - life! In the words of Tom Engelhardt, "Wouldn't it be nice, though, if official blue-sky thinking didn't always mean mobilizing finances, scientists, corporations, and even the animal kingdom in the service of global death. Wouldn't it be nice to "blue sky" just a tad about life?"
Under my "blue sky" Al Gore becomes our next president and begins the monumental task of returning this world to a sustainable environmental balance, economic stability and a semblance of sanity and peace.
Gary
What has man come to? Or perhaps more appropriately, why hasn't the evolution of man's nature and that of civilization evolved at the same rate as technology?
I like to fantasize about that pivotal moment in world history, December 11, 2000, when a politically and ideologically motivated US Supreme Court decided to usurp democracy and our constitution and award the presidency to George W Bush over Al Gore. This decision, that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors, was hastily made by a court whose conservative partisan members were eager to seize the reins of power for those who supported their ideals. If true justice was their goal they could have easily ruled to allow a full and accurate recount of votes that proves, as we now know and all evidence supports, Al Gore was the duly elected president and not George W Bush. By this act, flatly, the US Supreme Court has become corrupt and has failed our nation.
My "blue sky thinking" about Al Gore allows that, as President and in the face of security concerns over a possible terrorist attack in this country, President Gore, within a short time of taking office, would have instituted the recommendations of the 1996 Gore Commission Report on airline security that were torpedoed by lobbyists for the airline industry and the politically partisan Republican controlled congress. (See http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4532for details.)
Under consideration in this commission report were all facets of security measures, many since enacted including secure cabin doors, that would have in all likelihood prevented the 9/11 terrorist attack. There is no doubt in my mind that Gore, who was angered by the defeat of his commission's report as a result of the partisan fighting and resistance by the airline industry, would have worked to immediately established those security measures had he been allowed to take office. Also, I feel Gore would have acted immediately upon the intelligence regarding a high likelihood of a terrorist attack that Bush and the neo-cons ignored.
The condition of and exacerbation of the terrorist threat in today's world is what the Bush administration, the corporate lobbyists and the Democrat vs. Republican partisan wars have wrought on America and the world. The conflict in the middle east caused by the American preemptive invasion of another sovereign nation, and all the world fallout from America's aggression, would not have existed had Gore become president. Who knows what other positive results may have ensued under Gore's leadership?
There is no question that Gore would have relentlessly addressed the careless destruction of the world's environment and global warming. He would have inspired this nation to direct our nation's focus on energy self-sufficiency and development of new technologies to safeguard the environment. These efforts would have created new industries and new jobs, not only here but in other nations as well. His passion for protecting the earth would have caused Gore to quickly realize the ill-effects of free trade agreements that sacrifice human rights, the environment, and the economic and social welfare of the people of those nations these agreements are purportedly designed to benefit.
The truth is, free trade agreements only help one small segment of the world's people, those who control corporate wealth. Although Gore may have been a no-limits free trade junky at one time, I doubt he is now. Even as he supported free trade he only supported free trade agreements that included non-breachable environmental and workers rights protections.
In a Gore presidency all the billions and billions of dollars Bush has thrown at Afghanistan and Iraq and eventually end up swelling the bank accounts of a corrupt bunch of wealthy war profiteers would have instead been pumped into our failing education system and used to develop a national healthcare system. They would have been used for securing our borders and ports and for building up our infrastructure and our manufacturing industry. They would have been used to shore up social security and Medicare.
Because Gore would have focused us on climate change and the destructive weather patterns caused by global warming, the destruction of our coastal cities by devastating category 5 hurricanes would have been anticipated.
I can "blue sky" a flood wall around New Orleans as a result of a Gore presidency that would have prevented the catastrophe that will follow Bush into history along with chaos in the middle east and all the other problems created as a result of failed policies, inept decision-making, and the misdirected and failed leadership of his administration. Under Gore those same billions of dollars, a huge amount unaccounted for, would have been spread between the working class of this nation and the world and not stolen or unethically gained by those whose only goals are more wealth and power over others at the expense and suffering of all the world's people.
The results of a Gore presidency can only be imagined in face of the chaos and destruction of the current fanatics in power. Those who oppose Gore can imagine otherwise - but how can they imagine anything worse than what is now reality? Even those drunk on patriotism, Christianity and the illusions of divine and manifest destiny must have lucid moments when they realize the truth and see clearly that it's the worship of corporate systems, globalization and capitalism run amok that is destroying America, that is driving us toward bankruptcy and driving the entire world to the brink of economic and environmental disaster.
It's ironic the term "blue sky thinking" is being used describe efforts to further destroy our world and fill our skies with death and toxic particulate matter. Perhaps that thought process should be better termed "gray sky thinking".
Regardless, I am convinced that "blue sky thinking" would have been utilized in a totally different way if Al Gore had been allowed to take office on Jan 20, 2001.
Blue Sky Thinking under Gore would have been an effort to assure that future generations would continue to enjoy blue skies and live in a world of relative peace and harmony. A world where science and un-bridled, innovative thinking would have been used to create a better world, one where the environment was clean and life-invigorating. An environment where nations worked together in common cause to protect our earth and its people - not to figure out new ways to make war and destroy the planet - and God's most precious of all gifts - life! In the words of Tom Engelhardt, "Wouldn't it be nice, though, if official blue-sky thinking didn't always mean mobilizing finances, scientists, corporations, and even the animal kingdom in the service of global death. Wouldn't it be nice to "blue sky" just a tad about life?"
Under my "blue sky" Al Gore becomes our next president and begins the monumental task of returning this world to a sustainable environmental balance, economic stability and a semblance of sanity and peace.
Gary
Thursday, March 02, 2006
George Washington's Warnings
George Washington as he left office had published a farewell address to the citizens of the United States that should be required reading by all citizens as students and again as adults, Washington's wise counsel is as relevant today as it was then. I encourage you to take the time to read his entire address because it warns and cautions us of dangers to our country that are threatening us today, and it advises us on how to protect our country in face of these dangers. For the entire address go to this link http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
There are many cautions and sound advice offered by our first president in his address, all applicable to the present day. You may be surprised on what he says about religion and government. He also cautions us on foreign relations and becoming too chummy with other nations. Following as one example are excerpts regarding the dangers of political parties, one party rule and concentration of power. As you read this think of the state of our nation today and how prescient Washington was for his time.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
There are many cautions and sound advice offered by our first president in his address, all applicable to the present day. You may be surprised on what he says about religion and government. He also cautions us on foreign relations and becoming too chummy with other nations. Following as one example are excerpts regarding the dangers of political parties, one party rule and concentration of power. As you read this think of the state of our nation today and how prescient Washington was for his time.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)