28. January 2010 by admin.

Given the Republican response to President Obama’s initiatives, one has to wonder exactly what the Republican vision for our nation actually is.  To try to determine that, let’s look at recent events.  If Republicans had prevailed on their opposition to the TARP bailouts of Wall Street banks, most economists believe that the entire world economy would have collapsed and we would be in the midst of a 2^nd Great Depression.  Republicans argued against bailouts to General Motors and Chrysler which likely would have forced both into bankruptcy putting up to 10 million workers on unemployment.  Republicans fought the stimulus plan which, by even the most conservative estimates, has saved or created up to 2 million jobs.  And they have continued to whine about the growing deficits under Obama while lionizing Reagan for tripling our national debt.

The Republican alternative to Obama’s attempts to save our economy?  Tax cuts for the wealthy despite the fact that most economists believe such cuts would do nothing to alleviate our situation.  In fact, many feel that the tax cuts could make things worse!

Republicans have fought any form of banking regulation.  They have voted to keep the status quo on an unsustainable health care system that results in 33,000 deaths each year for lack of access.  They have voted against increasing benefits for military veterans.  Republicans refuse to allow the federal government to negotiate lower prices for pharmaceuticals as Canada and many other nations have done.  They are opposed to spending money to encourage the development of reasonable alternatives to fossil fuels.  They dismiss the international scientific community’s warnings of global climate change.  They have long stated their disdain for “entitlements” such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  They are vehemently opposed to labor unions.  They are opposed to social services for the poor, saying that they should be the responsibility of faith-based organizations.  Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices voted to corrupt our election process by permitting corporations (even those based overseas) to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of candidates who favor their positions. 

Under the Bush/Cheney regime, Republicans started two wars with no clear plan on how to win them, and no plan to pay for them.  (Indeed, they intentionally obscured the actual cost of the wars – in terms of dollars and lives.)  And they awarded billions to Halliburton and other corporations through no-bid contracts. 

The Democratic Congress has shown a decided lack of unity and will.  But based on the Republican record, why would anyone want to return the Republican Party to power?  Or their even less-pleasant brethren – the members of the Tea Party?

Posted in President Obama, Corporations, Current Events, Tea Party, Teapublicans, Culture, Taxes, Health care, Economy, Government, Politics, Deficit, Cheney | Print | No Comments »

27. January 2010 by admin.

On January 20, 2009, you probably thought the Bush/Cheney administration had come to an ignominious end.  You were wrong.  The problems generated by these goons still haunt us.  The war in Iraq may be winding down (although we can’t be certain), but the war in Afghanistan is growing.  The oil companies and Big Pharma are still holding a gun to our collective heads.  The Wall Street tycoons are still gambling with our money and paying themselves six to eight figure bonuses.  The corporations and utilities are still spewing poisons into our atmosphere.  The gun lobby is still rewriting laws to permit more weaponry.  Health insurance companies are still hauling in record profits while denying care to millions. 

Don’t blame Obama.  These issues all began or at least ballooned under Bush/Cheney and it will take years to change them. 

But these issues are the least of our problems.  Seriously!  The most problematic legacy of the Bush years is a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives who liberally support big corporations while denying rights for individuals.

And now that the Roberts Court has over-reached by over-turning 103 years of established law to allow unlimited funding for candidates by large corporations, what Senators or Congressional representatives will dare to vote against corporate interests when those corporations can spend millions, maybe billions, to defeat them in the next election?  What Gubernatorial or Legislative candidate will be able to raise enough money to compete with a corporate-sponsored foe?  The majority opinion of the Court says it ruled to erase limits on free speech.  The effect will be very much the opposite. 

Posted in President Obama, Corporations, Current Events, War, Supreme Court, Energy, Constitution, Guns, Health care, Economy, Government, Politics, Culture, Cheney | Print | No Comments »

12. January 2010 by admin.

I recently watched a documentary about the Civil War.  In discussing the events leading up to the war, the narrator stated, “For the Confederacy, it was dependent upon wealthy plantation owners convincing the poor to fight for them.” 

I could scarcely believe the openness and honesty of that statement! 

But isn’t that almost always the case?  True, many Union soldiers volunteered to join the battle as a fight against slavery.  And, in WWII, most U.S. soldiers joined the battle as retaliation for Pearl Harbor and to stop world domination by the Axis powers.  But most wars wouldn’t have happened if the rich hadn’t been able to manipulate the poor into fighting for them.

Many years ago, I found myself sitting next to the CBS bureau chief for Central and South America.  I told him I was confused about the situation in Nicaragua and El Salvador.  “Who are the good guys?” I asked.  He turned to me and laughed.  “There are no good guys.  Like most Americans, you’re under the false impression that U.S. foreign policy is about right and wrong.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  The U.S. simply supports whoever is friendliest to our corporations,” he said. 

Since that conversation, I’ve examined conflicts with his words in mind.  Almost always, I’ve realized that our soldiers are ordered to fight to preserve corporate interests.  For example, the Afghan War was not only the result of the Taliban providing sanctuary for Al Qaeda.  Bush, Cheney and their oil buddies had long wanted to build a pipeline across that country.  The Iraq War was sold as a pre-emptive strike against Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.  But it was likely more about the oil reserves Saddam controlled.  And, according to a professor at Northern Arizona University who studies the origins and results of conflicts, our war in Bosnia was more about demonstrating the continued need for NATO following the fall of the Soviet Union than it was about the so-called genocide. 

Indeed, if the U.S. entered wars only to protect our homeland or American citizens, we likely wouldn’t have participated in the Opium War with China, the Spanish-American War, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Kuwait, Bosnia and Iraq.  Moreover, we wouldn’t need to have our military stationed around the world in Germany, Japan, Okinawa, Bosnia, Turkey, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.

And if we entered wars solely for human rights abuses and the prevention of genocide, we likely would have sent troops to Tibet, Cambodia, Chile, East Timor, Sudan and dozens of other nations. 

So the next time you hear a politician start talking about the need to send our military halfway around the globe to protect “American interests,” ask yourself.  What interests does he or she really want to protect?  Those of our large, greedy corporations?  Or those of our citizenry? 

Posted in Energy, War, Corporations, Tibet, Cheney | Print | No Comments »

20. November 2009 by admin.

Liz Cheney has stated that she hopes her father will run for President in 2012.  Even allowing for the admiration that a daughter naturally feels toward her father, I have to respond, “Are you out of your @%#^ing mind?! “

This week’s most popular movie at the box office is a disaster epic entitled “2012” which portrays the end of the Earth.  If Dick Cheney were to be elected President, reality could well be more awful than fiction. 

Just imagine, in a Cheney presidency, there would no namby-pamby diplomacy with other nations.  No dithering with our enemies.  Indeed, we’d likely attack every nation that wouldn’t kowtow to Cheney.  We’d treat all Americans as suspected terrorists and spy on their phone calls and emails.  We’d jail our political enemies and hold them for years without trial.  We’d cut taxes on the rich.  We’d virtually eliminate taxes on large corporations.  We’d transfer even more wealth to our overlords.  We’d conduct all government business with no-bid contracts.  We’d privatize our military.  We’d politicize everything.  And we’d centralize all power in the executive branch. 

Wait!   Isn’t that what happened when Cheney was running the country with Bush as a figurehead?

Posted in War, Military, Privatization, Teapublicans, Current Events, Corporations, Cheney, Government, Politics, Taxes, Terrorism | Print | No Comments »

13. November 2009 by admin.

Last Sunday, a report by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes discussed the threat of cyber terrorism.

At the center of his report, Kroft interviewed Jim Lewis who directs the Center for Strategic and International Studies. According to Lewis, the United States has already experienced “an electronic Pearl Harbor.” Lewis continued, “Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don’t know who it is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA. They broke into all of the high-tech agencies, all of the military agencies, and downloaded terabytes of information. Someone was able to get past the firewall and encryption devices of one of the most sensitive U.S. military computer systems and stay inside for several days,” he stated. The system he referred to is the CENTCOM network, which is our military’s control center for fighting wars. Lewis said that the hackers sat inside the network, tracking information and documents “like they were part of military command.” According to Lewis, this is the “most significant” breach of security ever “acknowledged by the Pentagon.”

Proof that the Obama administration is weak militarily and soft on terrorism? No, wait!

But how could that be? Haven’t Bush and Cheney proudly declared that, whatever their other failings, they kept America safe from terrorists after 9/11? And hasn’t Dick Cheney expressed his concerns, make that outrage, over Obama’s approach to terrorism? The very same Dick Cheney who accused Obama of weakness for making overtures to American’s enemies. The Dick Cheney who has derided Obama for vowing to close Guantanamo. The Dick Cheney who is furious over Attorney General Holder’s investigation into the torture of prisoners. The Dick Cheney who accused President Obama of “dithering” on Afghanistan.

Yes, that Dick.

I guess in Cheney’s mind the hacking of our government computers (including those that control our weapons) doesn’t qualify as an attack. Regardless, he’ll probably try to place the blame on Al Gore for inventing the Internet.

Posted in Current Events, Military, Teapublicans, President Obama, Media, Cheney, Government, Politics, Terrorism | Print | No Comments »

20. October 2009 by admin.

It was recently announced that a former member of the Bush cabinet, Gail Norton, is the subject of a corruption probe. As Secretary of State, Ms. Norton awarded some lucrative oil shale leases to a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell PLC, the company that hired her a few months later.

The focus of the investigation is whether Norton violated a law that prohibits federal employees from discussing employment with a company if they are involved in dealings that could benefit the firm. It’s also possible that she broke the federal “denial of honest services” law, which permits a government official to be prosecuted for violating the public trust.

I have no idea if Ms. Norton is guilty. Her actions certainly give the appearance of guilt. But she’s certainly not the only former member of the Bush administration who appeared guilty of some impropriety. 

How about former EPA chief Stephen Johnson who found ways to avoid regulating greenhouse gases? How about former Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson who authorized billions to former colleagues in financial institutions without restrictions? How about former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who fired US attorneys for what appeared to be political purposes? Or how about John Yoo who found questionable justification to approve torture? Scooter Libby was convicted of outing a covert CIA operative, but what about those above him who likely encouraged him to release the information?

How about Don Rumsfeld who was responsible for awarding “no bid” military contracts to the corporation that was previously headed by former Vice-President Cheney? Finally, how about the former president who usurped power from Congress and seemingly ginned up information to justify an unwarranted invasion of Iraq?

As long as there are reasonable suspicions that these people committed illegal or unethical actions, there is a great likelihood that this kind of unethical behavior will continue.

And why limit the investigations to former government officials? The Bush administration was especially egregious. But the problems with our government go much deeper.

While we’re at it, let’s investigate the links between all elected officials and lobbyists. After all, when a political candidate receives tens of thousands of dollars from an industry, corporation, lobbyist or individual expecting special access or treatment, is that not as unethical as what Gail Norton is accused of?

Posted in Military, Energy, Teapublicans, War, Constitution, Environment, Government, Politics, Cheney | Print | No Comments »

13. October 2009 by admin.

When Dick Cheney held the office of vice-president, we all held our breath (and our noses) whenever he emerged from his dark cave.  We knew that his emergence could only mean trouble for the free world.  Either he was going to start another war, announce a new surveillance scheme for innocent Americans, or he was going to devise new ways to torture suspected terrorists and/or Democrats.

Now that the election of President Obama has sent the Dark One scurrying back to his badger hole, it appears that his offspring has taken it upon herself to remind us of how lucky we are that he’s no longer in office.  No one to rattle sabers?  Liz Cheney will show up on Fox News to promote war against somebody.  No one to promote torture?  Liz Cheney will torture us with her opinions.  No one to blame the Bush administration’s failures on Democrats?  Liz Cheney knows who’s really at fault.

Most recently, she appeared on Fox News to react to President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.  (After all, who would know more about peace than someone whose father is so versed in war, torture and draft deferments.)  Not surprisingly, she believes that Obama is totally undeserving of the award.  She explained that Obama has not proven anything yet – he hasn’t invaded Iran or North Korea.  Why he hasn’t even acquiesced to the military’s request for more troops in Afghanistan yet. 

The Dark One’s offspring even had a suggestion for President Obama.  Instead of traveling to Oslo to pick up the Peace Prize, she announced that the president should send the mother of a dead American soldier in his place.  (Perhaps Ms. Cheney hasn’t yet realized that any mother we would send is likely grieving as a result of a decision by Dick Cheney.)  Liz said she believes it would make a great statement to let the world know that it’s the lives of American soldiers that keep the world safe.  Apparently, in the Cheney family, nothing says peace like a grieving mother and the promise of more wars. 

Posted in War, Military, Teapublicans, President Obama, Culture, Cheney, Politics, Terrorism | Print | No Comments »

28. September 2009 by admin.

When the housing market crashed bringing down the financial industry along with it (or was it the other way around?), trillions of dollars vanished.   The question is where did the money go?

The Federal Reserve along with the Bush administration started propping up the financial industry and the economy beginning in 2007.  Mostly this was done quietly with little to no media attention.  By the time President Obama was sworn in, taxpayers had already shelled out more than $3.46 trillion and the world economy was on the verge of collapse. 

Since Obama’s inauguration, the federal government has committed another $3.77 trillion in loans, bailout funds and stimulus spending to stave off what most economists concluded would be a 2^nd Great Depression.   

And people are outraged!  Not at the ones who created this mess and originally hid it from the public.  But at the administration who inherited it.  That kind of logic could only be demonstrated by the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Armey.   Where are their “Teabagger” demonstrations against CitiGroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo?  Where’s the right-wing fury for AIG?  Where are the posters calling Bush and Cheney Socialists and Communists for having allowed (or encouraged) this to happen?   

More important, where’s the money?

Of the $7.244 trillion total, $168 billion was mailed to taxpayers in the form of stimulus checks.  $787 billion is dedicated to stimulus spending on infrastructure and new jobs.  $275 billion is targeted at foreclosure relief.  And $15 billion is aimed at supporting small businesses. 

The rest of the money ($6.167 trillion) went to prop up the very institutions that created the mess.  For example, $234 billion went to CitiGroup, $137.5 billion to AIG, $118 billion to Bank of America and $29 billion went to Bear Stearns.   Another $700 billion was dedicated to the Troubled Asset Relief Program.  $1 trillion was set aside for the Term-Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility to make it less risky for banks to lend money to businesses and consumers.  $720 billion was set aside to help banks remove toxic assets from their balance sheets.   Indeed, almost all the rest of the money has been allocated to help our banks recover from their own risky behavior.

And it has worked really well…for the banks.  Thanks to government aid, the CEOs, fund managers, and other financial executives are still able to afford new vacation homes, yachts and other “necessities” with their bonuses.  They’ve been able to raise fees on checking accounts and interest rates on credit cards.  And they’ve been able to return to the risky behavior that led to this mess in the first place.

Best of all, thanks to their lobbying efforts, paid for in large part by taxpayers’ money, they’ve so far been able to fend off serious regulation.   

Posted in Current Events, President Obama, Tea Party, Teapublicans, George W. Bush, Corporations, Media, Economy, Government, Politics, Deficit, Cheney | Print | No Comments »

31. August 2009 by admin.

There’s a long-standing tradition in the U.S. surrounding a change in administration.  Typically, the former president simply fades away.  If he’s public service minded, he occupies his time with large scale charities (ala Jimmy Carter), relief efforts (ala George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton) and occasional foreign relations issues (ala Bill Clinton’s recent trip to N. Korea).  And with rare exceptions (Al Gore), the former vice-president simply fades into obscurity.  When’s the last time you heard anything about Dan Quayle?

How I wish that were the case with Richard (the Dick) Cheney!

Instead, the former vice-president and his daughter regularly deem it necessary to come out of their badger dens to eviscerate any who have dared to examine the former administration’s failings, of which there were many.

It’s bad enough to read accounts of Cheney’s torture programs from the past 8 years.  But it’s darn near unbearable to listen to Cheney’s tortured logic in his attempts to justify it.  Even if the program did yield information that couldn’t have been gathered any other way (and, despite Cheney’s insistence, it’s uncertain that it did), it was patently illegal and immoral for torture to have been authorized. 

However, the fact that Cheney would encourage and authorize such a program should have come as no surprise to anyone.  His hunting accident was indication enough of the Dick’s moral and ethical standards.  I’m not referring to the fact that he mistook a friend’s face for a bird, or that he waited hours to inform authorities (probably until he sobered up).  What was most revealing about the incident was the reality that he was “hunting” for captive birds that had been raised to become fodder for fat cats too lazy and too impatient to hunt in the wild.  Indeed, the game farm had provided Cheney and his friend with a “menu” of available birds, along with a hunting dog to flush them out of the areas where game farm employees “hid” them moments earlier.

How on Earth can it be considered “sport” to kill creatures in such circumstances?  That’s no more hunting than ordering chicken from the menu in a restaurant.  And it’s an indication of someone almost totally devoid of character.

I believe that Attorney General Holder was correct to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Dick’s torture program.  But I think the investigation is much too limited in scope.  In my opinion, President Obama should live up to his campaign pledge that he will ask his Attorney General to examine the legality of every Bush administration directive.  And, if I were president, I would subject Cheney to the same interrogation methods he so gleefully defends.

But since I’m not president, all I can hope for is that the Dick and Liz will decide to go hunting together.   May the best shot win.

Posted in Tea Party, Teapublicans, George W. Bush, Military, War, Government, Politics, Cheney | Print | No Comments »