Bush Spending Like A Drunken Sailor?

Someone made the comment to me the other day that Bush was spending money like a drunken sailor. I'm afraid I have to completely disagree with the entire notion that a comparison of Bush to a drunken sailor is even remotely accurate. It's a completely unfair comparison! I have a lot of experience as a drunken sailor, you see, and I know for a fact there's no comparison.

A drunken sailor with any intelligence at all has allotments taken out of his or her pay to cover all their financial obligations, so that whatever cash he or she has in therio pocket is completely disposable income. If all of it is spent on drunken sailorness, there should be no real negative affect on their ability to meet their existing financial commitments. There's also the time-honored tradition of getting started at the club on base, where the drinks are dirt-cheap. This enables the initiation of the aforementioned drunkenness in a low-cost, financially responsible manner. Had our president not come form such a rich family, this factor alone may have helped him have a much higher attendance record during ANG drill weekends.

Plus, if a sailor spends all his or her disposable money on drunkenness, there's always the barracks and chow hall to take care fo the necessities of food and shelter. Not to mention that there are all sorts of low-cost entertainment options available through Special Services. When I headed down the gangplank or out the gate, I knew my drunkenness and whatever free-spending episodes that may result from such drunkenness would be limited by the money I could pull out of my pocket. A drunken sailor, therefore, has a very reasonable system of accounting checks and balances built-into the procurement and expenditure process that ensures a responsible level of fiduciary accountability.

Unfortunately for all of us, no such checks and balances exist when the Bush Administration heads down the gangplank. If they want to spend more money, they spend it and have the Republican-lead legislature vote away whatever checks and balances might have been in place to prevent such over-spending. Then, other people have to pony up the bucks to cover their spending. I'm sure they are hoping those payments won't come due until there is a Democrat in the White House, when the Republicans can blame them for raising taxes while ignoring that theya re doing so to pay theri debts. So the bottom line is, a drunken sailor exhibits a much greater degree of financial restraint and responsibility than the Bush administration does.

A comparison between a drunken sailor and G.W. Bush with regards to spending patterns is, therefore, fatally flawed in it's logical underpinnings.

Protecting National Interests?

President Bush and the Project For a New American Century, the storefront operation of the neo-conservative movement, have many times made the case that our involvement in Iraq is because they are protecting America's "National Interests." At the core of all this would seem to be the oft-unanswered question, what are America's national interests?

The neo-cons certainly seem to define America's national interests far differently than I define America's national interests. To the neo-cons, average people seem to be no more than sheep put here on this planet to do their bidding and to fund the implementation of their ideology with our tax money and with the sweat of our brows. To them, America's national interests are defined by the interests of giant industries like defense, energy, pharmaceutical, and so on. Serving the will of the people doesn't even begin to enter into the equation for them. They seem to believe they are serving America by using their superior intellect to impose their will on the rest of us because only they have the true vision of what is good for America. They consistently seem try to justify whatever means they want to use as being necessary for the end they claim we desire. National interests for neo-cons, then, would seem to be all about the ends and as long as those ends are achieved, any means that were used must have been necessary and, therefore, acceptable.

I am personally far less concerned with whatever America's interests are (ends) as I am with the manner by which America seeks to protect those interests (means). Fairness, integrity, respect, dignity, openness...these are the sorts of things that will make the world a safer place for America. Neo-con strategies seem to be heavily reliant on terrorism, fear-mongering, torture, bullying, domestic spying, reprisals, threats, secrecy, saber-rattling, lies, nastiness, plumbing, false accusations, forgery, and overall bad manners.

During a recent discussion about Osama bin Ladin, his motives, and the actions of George Bush Sr. before the first Gulf War, I made the observation that a permanent military presence in the Middle East had been the "holy grail" of American Middle East policy since at least the mid-1970s. I also pointed out that Osama bin Ladin claims that the American military presence in Saudi Arabia following the first Gulf War is one of the major reasons he called for holy war against America. So ultimately, those who made the decision that "protecting America's national interests" in the Middle East required a long-term military presence in Saudi Arabia also chose to expose average Americans to tremendous risks. To the people who made these choices, it is clear that the geo-political benefits they sought from a permanent military presence far outweighed the increased possibility of any blow-back perpetrated on the American people.

So here's my answer to the question, "Does a long-term American military presence in the Middle East serve our national interests?" It certainly serves the interests of G.W. Bush and a lot of rich people who stand to make millions of dollars from it. But how well did it serve 2,996 people on 9/11? How well has it served the 2,964 dead coalition troops and the tens of thousands of troops who have been wounded and injured? And how well has it served the masses of our troops who will die an early death from DU poisoning and whose minds will be tortured by PSTD? How well has it served all of us at the gas pump? If all of this is about protecting our national interests, my evaluation of the neo-cons ability to protect our national interests is that they're not very good at it and maybe we should try something else. Hatred and upward wealth redistribution don't seem to be working too well.

You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar, as the old saying goes. Bush and his neo-con puppet-masters are drowning the world in vinegar. That's how I see it, anyway.

The long and winding road.

As I was reading about the confirmation hearings of General Michael Hayden, I came across a statement by Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and was immediately struck by the contrast with another statement made many years ago by an American patriot.

The distinguished Senator from Kansas made this statement: "You have no civil liberties if you are dead." According to the Chicago Tribune's article, To leak or not to leak is question at CIA hearing, May 18, 2006.

On March 23, 1775, Patrick Henry said: "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

It's an interesting contrast. On the one hand, we have a career politician who advocates the sacrifice of liberty in order to preserve life while on the other hand, we have a revered patriot who advocates sacrificing life in order to preserve liberty. Few would argue that America has come a long way since the days of the American Revolution. What bothers me is how far we have strayed from the ideals that drove those who made the ultimate sacrifice in order to provide us with our liberties.

Senator Pat Roberts evidently doesn't think much of our national heritage, our tradition of honor and bravery in the face of adversity, or the price paid by our fellow Americans to preserve the liberties he is so willing to throw into the trash. Come on Senator, buck up. Don't let fear control your life and please don't allow your fear for your personal safety to lead you to trash the liberties so many other patriotic Americans have fought and died to protect. Don't be such a coward.

Senator Pat Roberts may prefer to live on his knees rather than die on his feet but not me. I'd much rather face the uncertainties of terrorist attacks than the certainties of fascism. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Trivia-Mongering

Okay, I admit it, I love trivia. Especially trivia associated with the origins of phrases and words.

I also love Croissants, too. Quite some time ago, I ran across a tale about the origins of the croissant and I think it's a great story. It seems that in 1686, Austria and Turkey were at war and one of the central issues was the ruler-ship of Hungary. Austria had "liberated" Budapest from Turkish occupation and the Turks were anxious to retake it. In 17th century warfare, occupying the major cities was how you won a war. So the Turks set about tunneling underneath the city as a way of getting inside and surprising the Austrian troops.

As has been typical for centuries and is true today, bakers were hard at work in the early, early hours, preparing their goods so they would be fresh for their customer's breakfasts. While working on their baked goods, some of the bakers heard the Turks tunneling underneath their city and raised the alarm. The Austrian army quickly responded and repelled the Turkish invaders. The Turkish army's inability to retake Budapest was a key element in the Austrian victory in the war. To celebrate their victory, the Budapest bakers created pastries in the shape of the crescent found on the Turkish flag. And thus the croissant was born. Or so the story goes.

Variations on the theme: I have also seen this story related as happening at the siege of Vienna in 1683, with Austrian bakers supplanting the Hungarian bakers. I've also seen variations in which the bakers were ordered to bake the crescent-shaped pastries by the king or the general so the victors could desecrate the symbol of their opponents by eating it.

Whichever variation is true, or even if none are, it's still a cool story.

What are our priorities?

I read and hear all the time about how "everything changed" on 9/11 and "the world changed" on 9/11. I don't particularly agree with these statements. The world didn't change on 9/11; we, the people, were finally forced to open our eyes and view the reality that most of the rest of the world has been living for a long time.

Not everyone had their hands over their ears or were turning a blind eye to terrorists prior to 9/11. Many people were well aware of the terrorist threat long before 9/11. And many of us were questioning the use of our intelligence resources for the war on drugs while so many terrorist organizations are bound and determined to do us harm. They way we are now spending our intelligence and military resources in Iraq is pretty much doing the same thing we did before 9/11; expending the vast majority of our resources on a politically-motivated war on a word rather than protecting the American people.

I'm not opposed to fighting terrorism; my problem is that the war in Iraq is not fighting terrorism and is, in fact, making the fight against terrorism a lot harder. Fighting terrorism requires unity among the nations of the free world. The war in Iraq divided the free world, not united it. Fighting the terrorism of fanatics who claim to be Muslims requires us to earn the respect of the Arab and Muslim worlds. The war on Iraq has given the Arab and Muslim worlds many reasons to mistrust us and even to hate us. Alienating the very people we, the people, most need to help us in our fight is not the path to success.

Protecting Americans against terrorism requires the expenditure of funds here at home. The war in Iraq consumes billions of dollars while local agencies can't get the federal money they need to put simple protections in place. Fighting terrorism requires intelligence resources. The war in Iraq is consuming vast quantities of our intelligence resources. The war in Iraq is increasing America's risk of a terrorist attack, not decreasing it. Nothing that is happening in Iraq is doing anything to mitigate the risk of attack through our airports, our seaports, our railroads, our postal services, our highways, or our infrastructure.

It's all a matter of priorities and to this president, our illegal and unjustified attack and invasion of Iraq is much more important than protecting America from terrorist attack. Just like the war on drugs was more important to Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton than protecting Americans from terrorist attack. It's all a matter of priorities and it's long past time that we, the people, set the priorities for our national government instead of letting them lead us by the nose down the path they choose. Despite what some people seem to believe, we elect them to serve us, not the other way around.

Why are we in Iraq?

This war isn't about WMDs. It's not about liberating anyone from anyone. It's not about Saddam Hussein. This war is about the ideology of a small group of rich and powerful people who want to change the world so it fits into their personal views. It is about shaping, "a new century favorable to American principles and interests." It is about our having, "a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities." It is because these ideologues believe "we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

Their methodology is clear. They believe that nothing is as essential to America's domination of the world for our own benefit as a strong military that consumes trillions of dollars of our tax money. And what better way to funnel out tax dollars into the defense industry than by starting a war?

Why are we in Iraq? It's simple, we are in Iraq:

• So the military will break lots of stuff and use up stockpiles so we will have to buy lots more stuff from defense contractors.
• To provide large contractors with billions of dollars of contracts so they will make obscene profits and become even more powerful.
• To gain influence over a major player in OPEC, so we will have a friendly voice at OPEC meetings and we will be able to influence OPEC policy.
• To gain numerous permanent military bases in the region as a launching-off point for whatever actions will be needed when we set off on our next adventure in, "extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

This is why we are at war with Iraq. This is why our sons and daughters are being asked to sacrifice their lives. This is why we are once again mired in an inextricable situation just like we were in Viet Nam a few decades ago. WMDs, liberating the people, countering Saddam Hussein; these are all just noises intended to distract us like a noisy mobile distracts a baby so it will fall asleep.Will you buy into the neo-cons lullaby or will you open your eyes and see their sham for what it is? The choice is yours.

All quotes from the Statement of Principles of the Project for a New American Century. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Dear Kurds

A few days ago, on a politically-oriented message board, I was challenged to, "Tell the Kurds that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction." So I wrote them this letter:

Dear Kurds,

Saddam Hussein had WMDs back in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the state-sponsors-of-terrorism list so America could sell him some helicopters that he then used to gas you. You see, we were much less concerned about the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein against you back then because he was fighting the Iranians. We really haven't liked the Iranians much ever since they threw out the CIA- and Mossad-trained death squads and dictator we put in power. So we turned a blind eye to the way Saddam Hussein treated you. We even ignored his using helicopters paid for by American tax payers to hose down your villages with poison gas. We also gave him classified test results so that when he used gas, they would be able to do it more effectively.

Later on, after our little war with Saddam Hussein, it appears that he destroyed all of his stockpiles of WMDs, so he wasn't able to gas you anymore. We also flew our jets over your heads to keep Saddam from attacking you. While we did pull our planes out of the sky whenever the Turkish Air Force wanted to bomb your villages, we did prevent Saddam from attacking you.

Most recently, America has helped you out by extraditing Kurds to Turkey so they can be tortured and executed by the Turks. Surely you can see how we have bent over backward to help you. I hope this clarifies America's strong stance against Saddam Hussein's use of WMDs against you. For some strange reason, some people here in America don't understand what close friends we are and the efforts we have undertaken on your behalf in the past.

While you may never receive a formal apology from our government, please accept my personal apology for the wrongs you have suffered because of the actions of our leaders.

Yours truly,

Bo Lasquis

Which of these was neighbor unto him?

The Good Samaritan copyright © by Dean Cornwell.

Most anyone who was raised as a Christian in America knows the story of the Good Samaritan. A man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho is set upon by thieves who rob him, take even his clothes, and leave him half-dead along the side of the road. A priest comes by a while later but passes right by and doesn't help. A bit later, a Levite comes by and also passes him by. Finally, a Samaritan comes along and tends to his wounds, places the wounded man on his own animal, and takes him to an inn, where he gives the innkeeper money to take care of him, promising to pay the innkeeper more money the next time he sees him, if what he left wasn't enough to cover the expenses.

For many Americans, this simple tale is a part of our culture. The Good Sam Club, an RVer's organization with over one million members, derives it's name from the tale of the Good Samaritan. Many states have Good Samaritan laws that require the first person on the scene of a traffic accident to render assistance and provides certain protections from liability suits. The Good Samaritan Society is America's largest non-profit long-term care organization. And there are Good Samaritan Hospitals all across America, from Puyallup, Washington, to Miami, Florida and from Los Angeles, California to Bangor, Maine.

The concept from the story about helping others comes across crystal clear to most people, including many people who aren't Christians. I think many people who know the tale, though, miss two of the critical messages of the story, which are about tolerance and assumptions.

The priest passing by is, IMO. a reference to those who preach one thing but do another in their own lives. Both the priest and the Levite represent officials of the same religion as the injured man but neither stop to help. There are myriad possible reasons why they didn't stop to help this injured man. This particular road was infamous for it's muggers and thieves, perhaps they felt it was too dangerous. Perhaps they didn't feel it was their place to get involved. Perhaps they thought he was dead and were simply following their priestly prohibitions against touching the bodies of the dead. Or perhaps they were simply hypocrites who didn't put their own professed belief system into play in their own lives. In examining politicians and some religious leaders across this great land of America, I can find many, many examples of people whose stated beliefs don't jive with their actions. It is clear that one of the points of the story is that the priest and the Levite should have stopped to help the injured man. I leave it to you to determine for yourself which of our politicians and religious leaders aren't stopping by the side of the road to help those who most need the help.

Of special note is that the person who does stop to help is a Samaritan. In the time and location in which the story is set, Samaritans were considered to be outsiders, outcasts, heretics, and even worse, by their fellow Jews. Their reasons were generally motivated by differences in race and in religion. For example, some Rabbis of those days taught that it was a sin to help a Samaritan woman give birth because it was evil to help bring another heretic into the world. And yet, it is the Samaritan, a man who was culturally and religiously different from the injured man, who stopped to help.

So what does this mean to us in this day and age? Well, one context to me is as a model for relations between American Christians and Arab Muslims. The racial, religious and cultural differences between ancient Jews and Samaritans certainly seem to have been as different as the differences between American Christians and Arab Muslims today. So if those differences are of the same nature, then surely the message should apply to us as well. Plainly stated, we should love each other as we love ourselves.

The parable also raises some interesting questions; to which I have my own answers. Are all Samaritans good? No, I don't think so. Are all Priests and Levites bad? No, very unlikely. Are all Arabs terrorists? No. Are all Arabs Muslim? No. Are all Arab Muslims violent extremists? No. Are all Americans war-mongers? No. Are all Americans Christians? No. Are all American Christians right-wing conservative fundamentalists? No. And so it goes.

I think that people are as different in other cultures and societies as we are here in America. So it is important to me that I treat other people based on their character, not their race, their religion, their culture, and so forth. Lumping Arabs and/or Muslims together into gigantic groups and treating them as if they are all the same is no more fair or accurate than saying that Jerry Falwell and David Koresh are the same since they are/were fundamentalist Christians.

Being a Good Samaritan means more than just helping out those who are like you; it also means helping those who are very different from you.

Do you Feel a Draft?

There has been a lot of discussion in America lately about the possibility of the draft being reinstated by the Bush administration. I personally don't think anything is imminent but it's an interesting issue and since I grew up during the Viet Nam war, I certainly have an opinion on the matter.

I'm not opposed to a draft in principle but I have a strong opinion about what it takes to justify the draft. Defending America from foreign invaders is a pretty good justification for the draft. Perhaps the only justification that works for me. I certainly don't see anything going on in the world today that would justify a draft. I do see things going on that will cause some politicians, especially those of the neo-conservative bent, to consider and eventually propose that America reinstate the draft, though.

Armed forces recruiting has failed to meet their goals for the second consecutive month; the first time that has happened in ten years. Recruiting of African-Americans continues it's five-year slide, having dropped 41 percent since 2000. There is a lot of speculation as to why recruiting has fallen off but I don't think it's rocket science. I think there are simply not enough people who feel personally committed to the president's war to risk their lives participating in it. There are far more people who "support" this war than are actually willing to place their lives on the line for it. If even ten percent of the people who claim they support this war were to trot on down to their local recruiting center, there wouldn't be any problem meeting recruiting goals.

If recruiting continues to be a problem and especially if it gets worse, pressure to reinstate the draft will grow, in my opinion. Modern American politicians are renowned for their moral flexibility and their willingness to change their position based on their perception of the need of the day, regardless of the stand they may have taken in the past. It is this flexibility and adaptive reasoning that makes me believe that the issue of the draft could heat up and become a sad reality in the blink of an eye. The government has ensured that the Selective Service Administration is well-oiled and ready to rock once they throw the switch. And the Bush administration has certainly shown their propensity for making things happen so quickly that there's not time for opposition to get going. All of which is why I believe we should be debating the matter now and not wait until the government tells us its too important to take the time to debate it.

The draft is, fundamentally, forced servitude. As such, it really should be an instrument of last resort. It should be reserved for desperate times when our nation is at risk of being taken over by foreign powers. I'm talking about real threats here, too. Not perceived threats described in terms of hyperbole by politicians with an agenda. Given the choice of having a draft that could be activated by politicians based on the same sort of nonsense that got us into war with Iraq and not having a draft, I'll take not having a draft.

I'd personally like to see a Constitutional Amendment that very specifically defines the circumstances under which the government can force servitude on us citizens. I even think we should require the government to take a vote before instituting the draft and require at least a two-thirds majority before they can do so. The Constitution is, after all, the contract through which we, the people, give our power to the government. I simply don't trust our elected representatives to do the right thing on such an important issue. History has shown that politicians won't be exposed to the same risks as the rest of us when they use the draft. I think those who lives will be placed on the line should be the ones to decide if it will be allowed or not.

A Constitutional Amendment may be the only way we will ever prevent the government from once again using the draft to force Americans to participate in immoral wars against their will.

Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Head

It seems to me that we have become obsessed with cute little ribbons over the past few years, here in America. In particular, there seem to be a lot of people who believe that all it takes to "Support the Troops" is to place the appropriate yellow ribbon sticker on the rear of their car and viola, they are a supporter. This evening, while discussing politics on one of the message boards where I hang out, it was proposed to me that liberals don't support the troops because only conservatives put yellow ribbon stickers on their car. Leaving aside my doubts about this individual actually having the wherewithal to accurately determine the political leanings of every yellow-ribbon-sticker automobile driver, it rekindled the fires of my anger over the misguided concept some have about what it means to support the troops.

By themselves, yellow ribbons mean doodley-squat. Anyone can slap a sticker on their car and claim that it means they are supporting the troops. But I just don't see it that way. Show me the people who are visiting vets in hospitals, who are giving of their time and money to support the people placed into financial devastation by their sacrifice and service to their nation, who are lobbying their elected representatives to give our veterans the medical and financial help they need, who are finding ways to help homeless and mentally ill vets the rest of America has turned their backs on, who want the military to be held accountable for poisoning our vets with depleted uranium (DU) and I'll show you people who support the troops. Plastering a yellow sticker on a car, bashing liberals, and feeling warm and fuzzy don't cut it. Not by a long shot.

Supporting the troops is a messy business that takes heart, grit, and compassion. Lots of Americans don't seem to want anything to do with really supporting the troops. They just want the cheap feel-good that comes from talking about it. Americans who stick a yellow ribbon on their car and nothing else aren't supporting the troops; in my opinion, they're supporting their own egos and deluding themselves that they are helping our troops.

Wildlife Refuge or Oil Reserves

I was reading an article today about President Bush pushing ahead for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, aka ANWR. I was struck by the justifications he used for drilling in ANWR while simultaneously avoiding the very same reasons for using the oil in the National Oil Reserve to mitigate recent oil price increases. It seems to me that if our oil needs are so urgent that we need to consider violating a wildlife refuge, then perhaps they are so urgent that we should be considering releasing some of the oil in the National Oil Reserves.

But of course President Bush isn't going to release any oil from the National Oil Reserve. That would reduce the cost of oil and eat into the record profits being posted by the oil companies. Despite the fact that this is EXACTLY why the National Oil Reserve was created in the first place. Bush's energy policies favor one segment of our economy, energy, to the detriment of our GDP and the pocket books of the American people.

If you want to know why the American economic recovery is so sluggish, you don't have to look any further than this administration's energy policies. It is a stone cold fact that when oil prices go up, American industrial production goes down. Economic recovery doesn't stand much of a chance when oil prices are rising. There are over 660 million barrels of oil in the National Oil Reserve; releasing as little as 30 million barrels could significantly cut the price of oil. A five percent draw-down of the National Oil Reserve would not pose any threat whatsoever to our national security.

Billions of our tax dollars have been spent pumping oil into the National Reserve. Why do we allow the government to deny us the benefit of the expenditure of our own tax dollars just so the oil companies can continue to make even more obscene profits?

In the choice between doing what is best for the American people and what is best for the oil companies from which his family derives their fortunes, let there be no doubt which way G.W. Bush will always decide.

This could be the start of something...big?

Well, here I go; a new blogger starting a new blog. This is my very first blog so please bear with me while I figure this out. If you have somehow managed to find you way here, welcome. I have set a goal for myself to write something here every day. Only time will tell if I am up to that challenge and only you can tell me if it's worth the effort. :-)

I expect that my main focus here will be in making political commentary; mostly on current events both domestic and international. I make no bones about it that I am a no-holds-barred liberal. I make no excuses for my liberalism nor do I offer any apologies for it. I think that what you will read from me here will reflect that in large part. I completely encourage anyone of any political persuasion to comment freely on what you might find here. Political debate gets boring pretty quick when it is one-sided or is conducted solely by people who all agree with each other. All I ask is a modicum of respect and serious consideration of the ideas and thoughts expressed herein by all.