In the U.S., Silence is Not Golden

It used to be that "noise" in public places was music in cafes, elevators, and caroles at xmas time, but now "noise" is everywhere as background music to documentaries, news casts, commercials, you name it you got it. Everyone it seems is sprouting ear pieces hooked up to gadgets that give them no-stop "noise", Americans cannot do without some noise in the background; or foreground.
What is most aggrevating about this "noise" is that they use it over something that might be of use, such as in documentaries or newscasts.
One person at least has won his battle against "noise" and that is Jack Cafferty, who appears on Situation Room on CNN. When his little show started he complained about the "background" music they insisted on playing, which made it almost made it impossible to distinguish what anyone was saying. It seems he won out for I do not hear the music during his part of the show. A gold star for Jack--now if we can get rid of the background "noise" in movies, TV shows, documentaries, and newscasts.

What War?

In essence we are fighting a war against opportunistic thugs, who use religion as a justification, who have used our own assests against us (referring only to those attacks on our soil, not Iraq). They, the "terrorists" have no military, such as planes, tanks, ships, nuclear bombs; preferring to take over unprotected passenger planes to use as human guided missiles--obviously a one-time event.
Now that we have locked cockpit doors and put guards on some planes that method of attack has been pretty well eliminated.
The war then is limted to finding potential attackers and preventing small countries from becoming a training ground for potential attackers (like you need a lot of area to teach bomb making?). "Engaging" the enemy consists, it seems, of citizens snitching on fellow citizens and the government "eavesdropping" on potential "terrorists".
Our "war" overseas consists of "assisting" foreign governments in doing the same--encouraging snitching on fellow citizens and "eavesdropping" wholesale on citizens, in general, and hopefully on "terrorists" in particular.
So far the war worldwide (Iraq excluded) has been hijacked airplanes and large homemade bombs, transported to targets by cars, trucks, and speed boats.
The "war" exists full-blown, mostly in the imagination of our administration and fellow ne-cons--the fear that nuclear bombs, biological and chemical weapons, capable of killing and maiming thousands, if not millions, of our citizens, will somehow be obtained by some obscure and unknown terrorist and used against us.
With this imagined war comes a hefty price tag and in the case of Iraq lives as well. Iraq, in an oblique sense, has been made part of the war on terror.
The biggest price we are paying is the lost good will that we once had with our European allies. One fluke attack has now become the potential for many and the threat never ends in the minds of our administration and its supporters. The "war" can go on for many decades.
To prevent a never ending war scenario we need an accounting from the administration as to progress being made, bench marks, and a definition of what the "war" really is.

Condee Rice Let "IT" Out of the Bag

During the recent interview with Wolfe Blitzer Condee Rice defined what the NSA was doing as "detecting" rather than "monitoring"; the significance of which went right over Blitzer's head.
Detecting is another word for 'fishing", the carte blanche eavesdropping of a whole class of individuals without descrimination; i.e., something highly illegal. Monitoring is eavesdropping on someone suspected of doing something wrong, which is lawful, if due process of law is followed.
Detecting is covering all calls incoming and outgoing which means if anyone made a call overseas it was listened to by the NSA.
Some people might not feel that the government's eavesdropping is not big thing if they are looking for terrorists but our laws were enacted to protect the people from government seizures and intrusions into our lives. It is often stated, that we are a nation of laws, yet it is a great temptation to some to break those laws, to make it more convenient in pursueing justice, and what that all means, this transgression, is that Democracy does not work.
It is up to the people, to decide if it does or not, to cast out those who does not believe that it does.

Bush Lies Again

Bush is still lying about Saddam Hussein saying that Saddam was violating United Nation dictates about WMDs. Saddam was complying, grudgingly maybe, but since he did not have WMDs or a nuclear program in operation he could hardly give up what he didn't have. That puts Bush on the spot--attacking a soveriegn nation without justifiable cause; and I might add that that is a violation of international law.
Bush doesn't seem to mind transgressing laws--tatke the new flap about authorizing the NSA to eavesdrop on American citizens. The Republicans are rallying around their chief with "ends justify the means" arguments, using the old fear appeals, which are fallacious arguements and excuses designed to justify bad behavior.
This "creep" on American civil rights is just what happened to the Germans in 1933--that too was for the citizens "good". The Republicans are all too ready to save American's lives by taking away, one by one, their civil liberties. Anything can be wrapped up in patriotism and fear mongering "what if" appeals. You notice anytime their arguments gets whacked they go back to "you'll be sorry when they attack you" plaints. The "slippery slope" is steep and hard to crawl out of once you are in it.
Now the Republicans are trying to get Bush off the hook by using the "you too" argument; by dragging congressional leaders into it. Numbers are no excuse or justification for law breaking and anyone involved in the NSA affair is just as guilty as our "Leader" is.

Bush and the NSA Authorization

The argument now being made to legitimize the authorization for "wire-taps", and such, to the National Security Agency, is that the government could not quickly enough act to obtain intelligence if a warrant had to be processed through a FISA court. But what is wrong with obtaining a warrant after the fact, say within 24 hours after an intercept was made, making it then more or less legal?
However, there is something "fishy" about the NSA authroization that no one is talking about. Authorization could have been done by warrant after the fact as outlined above, but wasn't, which leaves me to believe that there is much more to the authorization issue.
For instance, who decides who the targets are and how? The only reason that the FISA court and judges would be bypassed is if the NSA were randomly throwing a broad net out, using special software that selects certain key words, in order to find their "fish". If anything suspicious was detected the suspect transmission would then be monitored at length, without going through FISA. Nice and convenient--and highly illegal--even if the President does sign off on it.
This monitoring program by NSA has to be a large scale operation, one that would effect thousands and perhaps millions of American citizens over time. A definite felonious breach of civil liberties.
Bush has broken the law and his only recourse now is to try to convince everyone he was protecting Americans and hide behind National Security--with help from his Republican apologists in the Congress. The big question is will anyone stick their political necks out for him. Probably, but I wouldn't advise it.
If anything is ground for impeachment this violation of civil rights is one of them. This act and his failed reasons for going to war with Iraq are clear indications that he is incompetant and dangerous, certainly someone who doesn't belong in the White House.
If this authorization had been revealed when it was discovered we would have another person as President--someone who at least knows the law and respects American civil rights.

Rice's Testimonials

Condee is always assuring everyone that she and the administration is on the up and up but if you examine her language there is plenty of hedge room. No one has pinned her down about her statements about WMDs etc., following the administrations line of "faulty intelligence" and the "you too" argument about other foreign intelligence "believed" Saddam had WMDs and that our legislatures "voted for the war", "had the same intelligence the President had" etc. France and Germany did not go to war on their beliefs, G.W. Bush did. Our legislators did not say to the military "attack Saddam"; G. W. Bush did. In fact everyone was saying "hold off and let the U.N. inspectors search for WMDs"; it was G.W. Bush who had them pull out because he was going to attack Saddam.
Ask Condee a question and you either get a roundabout non-answer where the questioner, audience, and even Condee forgets what the question was or you get a non-answer where the language is so hedged, vague, that mercury would be easier to pin down.
Her statement about the U.S. not torturing people wherever. The statement is so broad in definition you could drive a semi through it. What is the definition of torture? No one defines the terms they are talking about--specifically. Is mistreatment torture? If you are on the receiving end of it you might say it is. The military establishment wants some form of persuasion at least, but what is it. If we get it will we squawk if the enemy does the same? Tit for tat maybe? Maybe that is why the military is so coy about what they do, not so much that the enemy will develop counters to it.

Iraq--Its All About Bush's Ego

It doesn't faze Bush at all that he was wrong about Iraq's WMDs, that he was no real threat to the U.S., that there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq. Bush said he would still attack Iraq knowing what he knows now--no one seems to be picking up on how irresponsible his statement is and what it implies--that Bush is incompetant and dangerous to our National Security. Now he has to "prove" his belief that we will "save" America by establishing Democracies in the Middle East.
Bush is determined to be a "Great" President, no matter what, and is not about to leave Iraq without a democracy established in that country and will expend the U.S.'s treasury and military might to be "right". He can "blame" the WMD mistakes on "faulty intelligence" but if Iraq cannot establish a democracy, why then that is a failure for Bush. He will not accept that so we can figure on being in Iraq till Bush is out of office.
What may be looming closer is more conflict--with Iran and Syria. They have always been at Israel's throat and ours indirectly and will do what they can to destablize a U.S. supported Iraq and try to promote an anti-Israel government. Israel is the key to peace in the Middle East and has been the main irritant to the Arabs since the late 1920's. There will never be peace in the Middle East as long as Israel exists--at least in our life-times. Trying to install Democracy in the region is not going to solve the war between the Arabs and Israel.

Impeach G.W. Bush

The other day G.W. Bush said that if he knew back then (before invading Iraq) what he knows now he would have made the same decision to invade Iraq!
He didn't know for sure that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, had or about to have nuclear weapons, and there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. So where is the justification--legally?
Without certainty of these facts in hand he had Iraq invaded; which according to international, and U.S. law, is a high crime.
He had authorization from congress, but it was an administration "duped" congress, which in itself is a crime--lying or misleading congress with cherry-picked intelligence.
The Bush administration gambled that there would be evidence of WMDs, deliberately cooked intelligence to dupe congress, and the public, and engaged in a six-month long propaganda campaign to "sell" his war. Actions, and the facts, bears all this out--if anyone cares to investigate.
If we had a congress that was bound to it oath to uphold the laws of the United States, was ethical and moral, held to honor then Bush would be impeached for what he and his administration has done. But they are a lot of hypocrites where ethics and morals are to be forced on others. This administration and congress speaks about corruption in the United Nations, yet this government has sold out to special interests to the detriment of the middle class--the worst I've seen in my lifetime--Reagan's administration excepted. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Bush lied about Saddam Hussein and Iraq in order to sway public and political opinion, he "illegally" invaded another country without a clear and realistic plan for success, cost the American people lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, disrupted the military, and still has no certain idea of what "success" will be. He hasn't been held to account as to how, and the real "why", the U.S. went to war.
If the Republican led congress could impeach Clinton for lying about having an affair it seems that they would be as ardent in upholding our laws by impeaching G.W. for lying about why we went to war with Iraq. We did not have a clear mandate to go to war with Iraq because U.N. inspectors were being allowed to search for weapons. Saddam could not comply in giving up weapons and materials he did not have, so when Bush says that we went to war with Iraq because Saddam wasn't complying with UN mandates, in reality the real reason we went to war was because of Bush's mistake, not Saddam's non-compliance.
Why is an impeachment process so important in this case? The U.S. resources are dwindling and aren't to be wasted on wars. The U.S. can no longer engage in nation building and be the world's "enforcer"; as those in the administration believe.
Democracies, like Utopias, are likely to thrive when there is an abundance of resources available, but do not thrive when there is a lack of critical resources. We, the U.S., will reach that critical lack soon--when oil resources in the U.S. are depleted--and when our food production can no longer keep up with our population; a point we are just now reaching.
So we need to have our present and future political leaders not engage in idealogical experiments such as this administration has done. We have some critical issues to deal with in the near future and do not need to exacerbate problems.

60% Unemployment?!

If I heard right Iraq suffers from a 60% unemployment rate! No wonder we are (and they are) having difficulties there. No society can survive or progress with that high an unemployment rate.
The Great Depression is remembered in this country as a disaster and our unemployment rate then was around 25%. Democracy almost failed, and in some parts of the world it did--Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, for example, emerged from the chaos.
Everyone talks about battling the "insurgents" but no one speaks of the economic chaos that exists; and why should, or could, they, when they can remain in the "Green Zone" listening to "pep-talks" from military "information" officers who can see "progress" in any situation.
I was thinking about how many of the proponents of the administration were taking tours to Iraq and then coming back expressing how well we "in reality" were doing in fighting the insurgents and rebuilding Iraq. I was questioning this in my mind and it so happened I watched HardBall the other night and it became clear, after some sharp questioning by Chris Matthews, that these tours in reality were nothing more than one big propaganda ploy by the Bush Administration. Rep. Bill Shuster (R) "toured" Iraq for two days during which he made a very brief "excursion" from the safety of the Green Zone and got his information from the military and a few Iraqi government officials.
The extent that this Administration goes to mislead the American people and the rest of the world is way beyond rationality.
The mind-set the Republicans have is well exemplified by the recent interview with Chris Matthews with Pat Buchanan--anything goes. It is OK for the government to spend your money to lie to you. The Republicans are great at trying to push the Ten Commandments in public places--they should read it sometime--especially the part about falsely testifying?
For more about propagand from the administration try my web site at tiltingatsacredcows.com.

Illegal Immigration Prevention

The illegal immigration issue is a social as well as an enforcement problem. Everyone, it seems, has a reason for not enforcing existing laws, as well as not trying to make more laws and regulations, which might "solve" the problem.
As it stands now our legislators refuse to engage ina a serious debate and problem solving effort about the issue and refuse to raise sufficient funds and resources that would allow enforcing our existing laws.
Local police give illegal immigrants a "pass" because it is a "federal issue", the "system" gives employers the "wink and nod" to hire illegal aliens--it is no wonder that the U.S. is flooded with illegal aliens. The fact is, if we wanted to solve the issue we could. So far no one, other than the general public, wants a solution.
If I can come up with a plan in a few minutes thought, then our legislators ought to be able to come up with at least as good or better plan. In order to solve a problem a person should know what the problem is. In this case the basis of the problem is that illegal aliens are coming here (the U.S.) to find work, and because they are finding work, are coming here. Simple problem identity--no?
The solution--eliminate the jobs that are being provided to illegal aliens somehow. If an employer is approached by someone who speaks very little english I would think that would set off some bells. An employer is under no obligation to hire anyone, let alone an alien.
To get a job then it should be up to the applicant to "prove" his/her legal status beyond a reasonable doubt.
Besides the usual documentation, which can all be bogus, questions as to where they got their documentation, what schools they attended, towns and cities they lived in, addresses of where they lived in the past, knowledge of U.S. events etc. should be good clues as to whether someone is here legally or not. This sort of questioning, followed up with a call to Immigration and/or the IRS should eliminate most if not all illegal immigrants from being on someone's payroll. A stiff fine, say around $10,000 for each illegal alien hired should give those employers who cheat some pause. Especially when most of the responsibility and liability is put on the employers. Right now there are all sorts of dodges (legislative loopholes) that give employers an "out".
Giving out rewards to persons that turn in employers who hire illegal aliens should do much to help Immigration in finding those employers who cheat.
Everyone who has something to gain seems to have "pseudo" facts and statistics to further their argument. The average citizen can make up his own mind just from what he sees happening in his own neighborhoods. Whole communities are being taken over by aliens of every variety. Our politics has become multi-national--Cubans, Koreans, Jamaicans, Haitians, and more are effecting our local and national politics. Foreign nationalism is wagging the dog and making American politics multi-partisan and chaotic. Its about time to drop the slogans and get back to some semblance of reality. The U.S. is in trouble on many fronts. The sooner that fact is recognized the better off the country will be. The illegal immigration issue is just a symptom of decay. For a good idea of the decay process review The Fall of the Roman Empire.