"LIVING" TAX?

Former prez Clinton recently said:

Clinton said it is "unconscionable" that the United States has not toughened car emission standards, and he objected to the president's efforts to permanently repeal the estate tax. An estate tax on the richest one percent of Americans could raise $25 million to $40 million a year, enough to wipeout extreme poverty around the globe in a decade. [ME: not if the gov't has a hand in it AND this is a bold-face LIE designed to make you feel good about being taxed.]

Clinton noted he is one of those rich Americans and that taxes are in some respect a duty.

"I think it's the price of civilization," Clinton said.

What's wrong with that? This: e.g. Billions poured in to Katrina aide and BILLIONS were squandered. The gov't is LOUSY at managing and accounting for citizen's money. And, it IS our money, no matter what the tax-believers-nanny-staters think.

Warren Buffett gives the bulk of his wealth to Bill Gates' non-profit foundation. The U.S. gov't has MANY many programs designed to help people in the areas that Gates' foundation focuses on such as education and health (medical research), yet instead of giving the dough to the feds, he gave it to the head of one of the world's most profitable, well-run/organized, accountable, forward-thinking, industry-leading companies.

Apparently, Buffett and Gates think THEY can do more with THEIR money to help civilization than the gov't can. I agree. Let's see what Clinton does with HIS estate.

Quiz: Where you at?

NO matter how many times I take a "QUIZ" to determine my political leanings, I always come out a Libertarian. I sure wish the Libs had good candidates.

When I was in college one of the pins affixed to my backpack was "Question Authority" (I still have the pin, though rusted and worn). I wonder who is the "authority" now?

My Kind of Progressives

[Excerpted] We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of September 11 2001 were America's deserved comeuppance, or 'understandable' in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from US foreign policy. What was done on that day was an act of mass murder, motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that.

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted – rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.

This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one's energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi 'insurgency'. The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess.

Vandalism against synagogues and Jewish graveyards and attacks on Jews themselves are on the increase in Europe. 'Anti-Zionism' has now developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form alliances with anti-Semitic groups. Amongst educated and affluent people are to be found individuals unembarrassed to claim that the Iraq war was fought on behalf of Jewish interests, or to make other 'polite' and subtle allusions to the harmful effect of Jewish influence in international or national politics - remarks of a kind that for more than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to make without publicly disgracing themselves. We stand against all variants of such bigotry.

The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of 'rendition', must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit. But we reject the double standards by which too many on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted about infractions that outstrip these by far. This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.

Read it all...

Do You...YOU...Feel Like I Do...

Pete Frampton. 70s. "must'uv been a dream, I don't believe where I've been...c'mon lets do it again..."

My cousin Bonnie (who looked like the daughter of Rachel Welch and Faye Dunaway -- a complete knockout, who looks now like she's been knocked-out a few times) was a Pete Frampton fan. In fact, it was her Frampton Comes Alive album that I played over and over again on my record player. She brought the album with her when she stayed with us one summer. She left and the album became mine, along with Alice Cooper's "Welcome to My Nightmare". My favorite: Cold Ethel. I later learned that Cold Ethel was about, well, necrophilia. But what did I know? I was a kid. Same thing with "Puff the Magic Dragon" one of my favorites as a child, only to learn as an adult that it was a tribute to weed. All I know is that I liked dragons. They were neat. They could fly, had talons and blew fire. Pretty cool. I knew nothing of "weed", only that it "is a plant whose virtue has not yet been discovered" (so says Emerson).

But lately, I wonder if I'm alone in how I feel...are folks tired of the anger, having to choose sides, trying to figure out what's right, what's wrong, what's not, what is? And I think back on simpler times, at least they were simple for me, as a kid, growing up in the 70s. And even though there was a war raging on the other side of the world, all I knew was music and friends and family and kickball and long summers and cool nights that seemed to last forever and life seemed, well, quite clear...

Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now.

-Bob Dylan

IF...

If we rushed to war in Iraq (18 months), did we rush to war in Afghanistan (1 month)?

If there is genocide in Sudan (blacks, Christians), was there genocide in Iraq (Kurds, Shiite)?

If it is o.k. to do something i.e. exert force in Sudan to stop genocide, was it o.k. to stop genocide in Iraq (Kurds, Shiite)?

If it was o.k. to stop the killing and mass graves in Kosovo, was it o.k. to stop the killing and mass graves in Iraq?

If it was o.k. to go to Afghanistan with no threat of WMD should we not go into Iraq with a threat of WMD?

If there are too many troops dying in Iraq, what is the acceptable amount of troop causalities while engaged in conflict?

If the coalition, especially U.S., troops leave Iraq, will the killing stop?

If we should withdrawal troops from Iraq (150,000), should we withdrawal troops from Kosovo (1,500), Japan (35,000), Korea (33,000), Europe (100,000) and other places around the globe?

If colonialism in Africa was/ is bad and oppressive, what is civil war, despotism, genocide, famine, disease, mass rapes, etc?

If American imperialism is bad, is American money and aide good?

CAMERA IN HAND, READY TO “ACT”

The past 6 years feels like one big long whine-- a lot of wind pushing dirt around and not going anywhere. One event after another seems to fill the sky with dust clouds, resulting in inaction and an inability to see clearly.

Now, George Clooney and dad are promoting the Darfur situation as is Angelina Jolie et al. And yet, we've had the knowledge that genocide was occuring in Sudan for years, only to twiddle our thumbs and sit by idly expecting OTHERS to step in and do something while we complain about how BAD things are here in good ‘ol USA-- griping about the war, WMDs, George Bush, Karl Rove, DeLay, Hillara, Leaks, Dems, Repubs, etc. A tremendous amount of energy put to waste instead of to good use.

Something about George walking around with a mike and camera just put me off. His tourist approach to the situation made my stomach churn—it felt too smug, too comfortable, too much like “I’m DOING something. Let ME inform YOU because I’ll sure be the better for it…” (It's unclear how Darfur will be the better for it.)

Will Darfur get better now that we SEE, thanks to George and company? Will we, after years of mass killing, look back via first-hand survivor accounts, books, documentaries and films (money-making enterprises) on the tragedy of it all and say “we should have done something” like we did with Rwanda? Is this our way of appeasing and congratulating ourselves at the same time for NOTICING even though we refuse to speak the truth of what action must be taken?

Would George Clooney go to a car wreck with mike and camera in hand asking the victims what they thought, how they felt, etc? I should hope not. One would hope he’d call for help, maybe administer first aide, put out the fire, etc. Darfur is a burning car with men, women and children inside and bringing attention will not save those people, DOING something will.

I'm not picking on George. He appears to be sincere. But how many deaths must occur before we stop talking and start doing? Time for action. Do what was not done in Rwanda. Put down the cameras. Bring in the troops.

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

Clean Air Calabasas: A smoke-free, family-friendly atmosphere of moralistic intolerance

An article on more busy-bodies working to eliminate our freedoms. Excerpt:

The city council, which unanimously approved the ordinance last month and has started calling the Los Angeles suburb "Clean Air Calabasas, a Smoke-Free City," predicts the state government (which already prohibits smoking in indoor workplaces) will follow its example. If so, judging from the history of smoking bans, Calabasas-style restrictions eventually will move from California to the rest of the country. Before that happens, Americans should consider whether they really want to embrace the Calabasas spirit of moralistic intolerance masquerading as "public health."

Tellingly, a provision that would have permitted outdoor smoking in the presence of nonsmokers with their consent was removed from the final version of the Calabasas ban. So if you're in some deserted part of the city in the middle of the night with a friend who smokes, he is allowed to light up only if you do too.

If he lights up and you don't like it, you can file a complaint with the city, which can charge your friend with a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a jail sentence of up to six months. You also can sue him, seeking compensation for injuries inflicted by his tobacco smoke or statutory damages of $250 for each violation, plus attorneys' fees and court costs.

If you can show your friend was guilty of "oppression, fraud, malice, or conscious disregard for the public health and safety," you can recover punitive damages too. By that point, of course, he might not be your friend anymore.

. . .

Which is why they decided to resolve the minor annoyance of drifting outdoor tobacco smoke through criminal charges and lawsuits—instead of, say, public stoning. Presumably the city council members also had the minimization of punitiveness and disruption in mind when they chose to criminalize not only unauthorized smoking but "allowing, aiding or abetting" it by looking the other way or putting out ashtrays.

. . .

The logic of forcing people to set a good example for the kids—which also would justify banning fat people and motorcyclists from public places—reduces adults to the level of children whenever they venture out of their homes.

No Action "Hero"?

Lately, Governor Schwarzenegger has been sounding like a big baby. Now, I don’t know if he’s being positioned this way because many of the reports have paraphrased his so-called statements, but he’s been using a lot of un-leader-like words:

Schwarzenegger: Feds should be worried about California levees

"They are spending $100 billion in New Orleans right now because they were not acting fast enough. And here is the time for them to redeem themselves, to go and say, 'We made a mistake before; let's not ever make that mistake again.' And again they are missing the boat."

"We must let the president know that we need help," the governor said. "We want to put the pressure on the federal government, because they already have made a big mistake with New Orleans. Here is a chance for them to do really good."

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says he's going to complain to President Bush tomorrow about government inaction on his requests for help in repairing the state's antiquated levees. [notice it's “government” inaction as though there are no State responsibilities]

There are a lot of hands held out for Federal $$. What ever happened to STATES standing up and DOING the work for their citizens and not waiting for the Feds to save them? Why does everything get directed and shifted to the Federal Gov’t to DO something? Where’s the State’s self-reliance? Waiting for the Feds means nothing gets done.

Schwarzenegger has fallen into victim-hood mentality; his language is that of a loser rather than winner. He sounds like he’s whining instead of DOING. He should be saying “we can not wait for the Federal gov’t to respond, WE must act. Here is a chance for US to not make mistakes and to take care of our citizens, our state.”

He needs a better script with a hero’s dialogue and lots of action.

Who's Keeping an Eye on the FREE Press?

I’m for a Free Press. I don’t have much confidence or trust in government, no matter who’s in the WH and the Press can provide balance, perspective, insight and truth as it informs us citizens. However, I find the recent broohaha regarding the CIA leaks/Pulitzers/NSA Wiretappings, etc. rather perplexing, hugely irritating and extremely hypocritical.

It seems the Press (i.e. old media) has the right to expose government programs such as the NSA wiretappings and the “secret” CIA prisons, but don’t have to mention their sources or provide perspective—that their right to protect sources usurps the gov't responsibility to preserve & protect, our rights as citizens to be protected or even to have a SAY in what is released. O.K. Fine.

Well, no, it’s not fine…

Who are their sources for these stories? How are they verified? Did someone, other than the “source” SEE the prisons? Did someone, other than the “source”, witness the wiretappings? Who has come forward that has been wiretapped? Where are their stories? There is so much missing and I feel cheated—I want the whole story, not just the part they choose to tell. The Press is acting like a 5^th Column and giving us citizens the 3^rd Finger.

The Press has engaged in the very thing it accuses the Administration of: stonewalling, secrecy, corruption, manipulation and down-right lying.

Why is there one set of rules for government and a different set of rules for the Press? The Press has placed themselves in a position of superiority—serving up their own interests with We the People having NO say. At least with government, you can vote the culprits out of office (except in the case of leaking CIA rats et al fat cat Bureaucrats).

What can we do about this old media “FREE” Press? Give ‘em the boot I say. Stop reading their crap and watching their celebrity reporters on talk shows. Read multiple blogs and free news sites, get different perspectives from the right, left and center. Take it all in and leave the Free Press really free…free of readers.

New Orleans Chooses No Change

Well, the “citizens” of N.O. (notice the acronym for New Orleans is "NO") have chosen Nagin and Landreau as mayoral candidates beating out several interesting and probably more earnest, though less polished, contenders.

Since N.O. has absorbed billions in federal funds and will continue to soak up more to “rebuild” and federal funds come from federal tax dollars paid by American citizens in large part, shouldn’t WE have a say in how the city is governed? I mean, shouldn’t we have some input in our investment? When I buy stocks, I become a stockholder and therefore have some input in who manages the company and how the company performs, etc. (I VOTE for board members, acquisitions, etc.)

How are my interests and the interests of other Americans served in New Orleans? How do we know our investment will not go down the drain as it has for years with little or nothing to show for it?

As a taxpayer, I have no rights, no say, no vote and this seems not only unfair, but much like taxation without representation.

Tea anyone?

Mr. Mahoney Speaks...Out of Hiding...Unafraid

There's a saying in the Bible: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Cardinal of Sin, Mahoney, recently conducted an interview:

What has happened in the last few years is that we as bishops have had opportunities to have a public voice and role, but have been very hesitant, and just kind of sat out a number of these things. I’m thinking of local things -- for example, police abuse and overreactions in certain communities. We’ve had a lot of that across the United States. I think bishops normally would have said something, saying police are overreacting and categorizing people in ethnic groups, but in many cases they just remained silent. The gap, the chasm, between the wealthy and the middle class … the fact there’s almost no middle class left. The minimum wage, affordable housing, we just kind of sat it out, because we were afraid to appear above the sandbags. We were hiding. … Had this come up two years ago, three years ago, I don’t know what the reality would have been then. I just know that in our archdiocese, this issue is so important that even during these years I always spoke up. [emphasis added]

No mention of the molestation and rape of boys and the suicides committed because of pediphile priests. Disgusting.

The immoral Mahoney and his ilk have blood and more on their hands and are the reason for the continued demise of the Catholic Church. This issue is important because it means MORE MONEY for the church. The Catholic Church seems to be returning to its roots of corruption, greed and social injustice at the expense of its soul.

I'd like to help Mr. Mahoney remove that plank...and then hit him over the head with it.

Follow the Money

Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles and his Catholic Cardinal cronies have stepped into the political arena "willing to take the heat" and fight illegal immigration bills presented by the House and the Senate.

A cynical view: Mahoney couches his position in "treating people humanely", yet I do not recall the same fervent stance against pedophile Priests under his domain who routinely treated young boys inhumanely—raping and molesting them and robbing them of their innocence. No, Mr. Mahoney was inhumanely quiet on this issue.

Losing billions of dollars through lawsuits directed at the church’s immoral cover-ups, the LA church can't turn off the tithes spigot they receive from their largest constituents: Hispanics. So, they turn on the rhetoric and shameless pandering to illegal people (Hispanics mostly) entering the U.S.

They had their chance to do the right thing and didn’t. Mahoney and the rest of his gang are morally empty but hoping for a full coffer come Sunday Mass.

"Karl Rove is an Evil Bastard"

Was the pronouncement of my former boss, head of a successful 25-year old video game company, Harvard MBA, former Dubai Ad agency owner, dad & husband and generally good natured, down-to-earth chap.

But these days, his nature is foul. What’s striking about that statement is that it sprung forth from a conversation not the least bit fertile for a discussion of politics or governing or international affairs. At least not to me. But, it needed to be said. Like a child that just has to let loose his thoughts. Bam. Karl Rove is an evil bastard.

So, I masterfully changed the subject as I don’t know Karl Rove and though he is credited with satanic abilities and mass mind-control, I really can’t speak on the subject of Mr. Rove. I don’t know Karl Rove.

But I do know my former boss…

A few days later I was sitting in the office of this former boss pitching my services to him for an upcoming project. I was ready to get down to business (basically how much are you going to pay me), when he said, “I’m glad to see more and more people are coming around to my way of thinking. The President’s poll numbers are bad and most people think the war is wrong.”

O.K. Gulp. My internal self speaks to self: Are we going to get into this? Geez. Do I tread lightly or let it rip? He obviously needs to “talk” about this. So, I said, “Well, it’s like a company, if you hear the media and so-called industry experts griping and complaining and saying bad things about the company and/or it’s leaders, then it seems likely the stock will go down and the brand will be diminished and that’s not good for all the people that work for that company. (He’s a company-man, he’ll appreciate the analogy--he's been there when the heat is on and the press and the industry hate you.)

“And that’s what I take umbrage with, not dissent because I’m one of the most anti-authoritarian people around (he smiles, knowing this all too well) and suspect of power—the ‘America bad’, ‘Bush bad’ emotional and irrational diatribes that go on and on ad nauseum instead of critiquing policy...”

He smiles…yes, he has drawn me into what is sure to be a lively debate and clasps his hands just above his lap—ahhh—the relaxed confident posture of a practiced debater. Very good. I’m amused.

Boss: But Bush sees everything in black and white, good vs. evil and the rest of the world doesn’t see it that way. (Posits his premise while trying to add credibility to his assertion.)

Me: The “rest of the world”? Actually, the rest of the world DOES see it that way—good vs. evil.

Boss: Not so.

Me: Is too (not really). Yes, they do. With the exception of …

Boss & Me in Unison: Europe

Me: Yes, but Europe is not the rest of the world in fact, Europe is just a small part of it. Take India for example…

And I continue for a few moments about India and other parts of the world that have an alternative view of his America.

Finally, I countered my former boss’s assertion that the world does not exist in absolutes that no right thinking and enlightened person would divide the world in moralist terms of good vs. evil and said: “I do think there are evil people in this world and reject the notion that those that kill artists, homosexuals and castrate and stone women are not evil. They are evil.”

But, I was struck. I like my former boss. He and I have sparred often and we both enjoy the clash of steel and the gentle stabs to deflate the air in inadequate or inane arguments. As an insider, I know that this private company has not taken care of its employees, that the owner /CEO considers them to be as close to servants as the law allows and has denied them vacations, raises and bonuses while he has taken month-long vacations, siphoned money from the company that could be re-invested or paid to employees, bought his 2^nd Malibu home and a new Ferrari in addition to the Bentley and all this in just one year.

While his staff struggles to meet their bills, he’s flying high and suffers no compunction. To many in the company (both present and former associates/employees) this man is considered evil and I think my former boss (his partner) knows it, yet has sold his soul in some way to keep his cushy high-paying position and stature and keep his wife in art classes, designer apparel and on the guest list of the influential, upper crust of Los Angeles society.

Just days before he was declaring Karl Rove an evil bastard and now he is ridiculing Bush for similar declarations.

The funny thing is, Bush’s enemies can and have killed Americans. I’m not sure you can say the same about Rove. But the bourgeois, in their languished lives, need to kibitz—it’s as old as the human race.

Tsk tsk. Hypocrite? Yes, I do believe that rises to the standard.

S.F. supervisors ask lawmakers to impeach Bush

Have you been to San Fran lately? Crime is rampant, gangs own the city and this is what the city's Sups spend their time on? It's clear that diverting attention from what you should be doing works in politics. They say "all politics is local", but shouldn't these sups be doing something about cleaning up their locale?

San Francisco's supervisors jumped into national politics Tuesday, passing a resolution asking the city's Democratic congressional delegation to seek the impeachment of President Bush for failing to perform his duties by leading the country into war in Iraq, eroding civil liberties and engaging in other activities the board sees as transgressions.

Ever notice how it's always the people that aren't doing their work griping about the people that are? It doesn't matter whether it's politics or companies--people are the same wherever you go. There are those that DO and those that DON'T.

San Fran could be the West Coast version of NYC--cosmopolitan, open to EVERYONE, clean, proud and safe for residents and visitors alike.

Hey San Fran Sups...GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF DOING SOMETHING!!! It was wrong when they did it to Clinton (impeached) and it's wrong now. At least the Mayor of San Fran is doing some thinking and trying to act on behalf of bettering his city. geez.

Cartooning the Cartoon Haters

Rape Victim Sentenced to Death

An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.

Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls’ boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.

She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.

As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.

The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.

The uproar over this brings tears to my eyes.

Oh wait... Amnesty Int'l weighs in:

Iran: Amnesty International calls for end to death penalty for child offenders. Amnesty International is calling on the Iranian authorities to take immediate steps to end the use of the death penalty for child offenders. Two new cases have been reported in which child offenders – persons under 18 at the time of the crime – have been sentenced to death by Iranian courts, in breach of Iran’s obligations under international human rights law.

Nevermind...

Power Grab

When will the US media "speak truth to power" for REAL? Show the cartoons!

Shhhh...

IslamoFacsist may be listening/watching...


And then, they might riot...


or kill...
Catholic Priest Shot to Death in Turkey

ANKARA, Turkey -- A teenage boy shot and killed the Italian Roman Catholic priest of a church in the Black Sea port city of Trabzon on Sunday, shouting "God is great" as he escaped, according to police and witnesses.

Understand us! America: Look at your foreign policy and how it has corrupted and destroyed the nations and peoples of the world. Look at how your support of Israel has brought this upon you. Understand us by submitting.

Viva la Freedom of Speech: The "Offending" Cartoons

Some US troops question Woodruff coverage

"The point that is currently being made (is that) that press folks are more important than mere military folks," a senior military officer told UPI Tuesday.

"It's just a bit frustrating to see something so dramatized that happens every day to some 20-year-old American -- or worse to 10, 30-year-old Iraqi soldiers or cops alongside us. Some of the stories don't even mention the Iraqi casualties in this attack, as if they're meaningless," wrote the officer in Baqubah.

That leaves the uncomfortable question about how much the media, or the American public, cares about the injured who are less well known, but in just as dire straits.

"Or the American public" (bullocks!)-- we didn't have a say, they blasted the news with Woodruff reports all through the weekend and into this week. This is clearly a case of "we're more concerned with the well-being of our own and because we own the media mechanism, we're going to focus on our own interests."