RaysPoliticalBlog

It Is Time to "Duck and Cover"

2006-04-16T16:56:00.000-07:00

Especially if you are hunting with Dick Cheney... This born wrong the first time, inbred, evangelical fundamentalist extremist, Armageddon loving, President is bringing back the horror of nuclear Armageddon.

We learned how to "Duck and Cover" in the "old days". Now, Bush's "No Child Cared About" education reform will leave no child behind when it comes to teaching them to Duck and Cover, and Then Wrap Themselves in Plastic and Duct Tape. (Note to self, entrepreneurial opportunity to develop and market "Ducked Tape" for those "special times" when your idiot president starts a nuclear war. Advertising campaign: Ducked Tape - It is totally useless and won't stick to anything, but if you need it - you won't need it - because - when we are talking about nuclear war - uh - we are really talking about the eternal peace of eternal death - so... it never fails. Ducked Tape - It Never Fails)

Once upon a time, in a universe where common sense ruled, the United States and other nuclear powers made pledges not to use nukes against non-nuclear powers. See: Nuclear Pledge. This assured non-nuclear powers that they did not need to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent because they were not in danger of being attacked. But then the thoughtless Bush regime thought the unthinkable. See: Nuclear Pledge, and Plan to use Nukes Preemptively, for elaborations of their thoughtless idea-logic idiocy. They make many completely illogical and unsupported assertions, like: our pledge not to use nuclear weapons actually inspired other countries to develop them. Yea sure, like being threatened would not make other countries all the more convinced that they needed them? Please.

Then Santa Bush proceeded to make a list, and check it twice, to find out who he could label as an axis of evil, and then told the listees, that they that we were coming after them one by one, and that they were next. These heavy handed tactics did effectively separate the men from the boys. Moammar al Qaddafi became one of the "boys." Although he had been headed that way for a long time, as a result of the diplomacy of previous Presidents. Unsurprisingly, Iran and North Korea went the other way.

Now into this cauldron of Bush regime inspired geopolitical instability comes the Bush regimes "operational" plans for nuclear war with Iran (that is "operational" not just contingency). Granted, operational plans are still contingent on the Presidents order to execute them - but they are real plans, presented as real options, for real consideration, to kill real people, and really make the U.S. the first - and second - nation to use nuclear weapons. This is real folks. (Note to self, entrepreneurial opportunity, develop and niche market black latex hazmat suits with white lace and white rabbit fur for those intimate moments when you clutch your radiation poisoned beloved as their life force slowly seeps away. Niche marketing.. it is the bling thing.)

Notice of coarse, that operation "Chicken Hawk" to use nuclear weapons, is not threatened against North Korea - only Iran. Notice that - and know that leaders of other countries all over the world are smart enough to to infer why this chicken hawk president is so much more aggressive toward Iran than he is against North Korea. Know that all countries around the world are reevaluating their need for nuclear deterrence in order to protect their sovereignty - even our boy Moammar.

As bad as this is, the thoughtless idea-logic idiots of the Bush regime have found new and creative ways to destabilize nuclear non-proliferation. I have an imbecilic idea-logic idea, let's let India ramp up their military nuclear program in exchange for mangoes. Helping India to increase the speed of making warheads two or three fold will not encourage politically unstable radical wahabist Islamist nuclear proliferator Pakistan to speed up their program - oh wait it will. Pakistan cannot afford an arms race with India. They will be forced to proliferate to all comers in order to finance the inevitable arms race with India.

Bush wants to teach our kids to duck and cover, but he is leading by example. What better way to distract the American people from lies, incompetence, and corruption than to "Duck and Cover" by starting a little nuclear war with little nukes, and once again wrapping himself in the flag as wartime Commander and Chief. The evil genius Rove has probably figured out that this bold decisive move is the best long shot hope of preserving the Republican majority in Congress thereby preventing effective Congressional oversight and avoiding prison for high crimes. He is probably correct. The American people are in love with their phallic false power of military might instead of their real power of love, peace, courage, justice, equality, nobility, tolerance, and diplomacy. They love the big "stick" but they have forgotten the wisdom and courage of walking softly with a carrot.

The Democrats Do Not Have a Unified Plan for Iraq

2006-04-10T13:33:00.000-07:00

Republicans create an impossible mess with no good answers and then want to criticise the Dems for not having a unified answer. How exactly are we supposed to have a unified answer for a problem that has no good answers? We don't know what to do. Well, we have a plan - I guess, but it is not really a plan, plan. See: Democratic Plan

A lot of us have good ideas - but no consensus. That is the whole point. This incompetent president has led us into a no-win situation. We went to war for the wrong reasons. We went to war in the wrong way. We fought the war in the wrong way. We managed Iraq in the wrong way after we "won." We iced out international partners that could have helped. And now there is little doubt that we will leave Iraq in the wrong way. There is no "right way" to leave Iraq.
The best metaphor that I can think of for this Republican created mess is: You meet a women. You seduce her with vows to love, honor, and cherish until the end of time. She enters a deep psychosis and you dump her. Except in this case we date raped Iraq to begin with (Rumsfeld's idea of seduction) - no wonder she is nuts. We probably do need to leave her - she'll kill us if we don't. But she will stalk us if we do. It is a mess. There is no good answer. The divorce will be expensive and ugly. She is going to take all of our treasure. But what are we going to do? Our friends tried to tell us to stay away from her... They said she was nothing but trouble... But we had to listen to our "little head" (Bush) - (he has the brains of a penis) - (some vulgar person might say dickhead) - (and the Downing Street Memo proves that he was certainly hot for her).
We went to war for the wrong reasons:I actually cannot support this assertion. I cannot support it because we really do not know why we went to war. We know that Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld were in a headlong rush to war from the very start of the Bush regime. We know that they were not straight with the American people. (Maybe that is why they are so "freaked out" by gays - because they are not "straight" - sorry - couldn't resist the play on words - anyhow...) We know that they cherry picked intelligence and played games with the UN and the UN inspectors... Maybe Baby Bush wanted to "show up" his daddy... Maybe the reason's were idiotic idea-logic... Maybe the reasons were geopolitical oil politics and war profiteering... Maybe there was a good reason (probably not)... We just don't know. We know that the real reasons were not presented to the American people. We sent our beloved sons and daughters to die in far off lands on the basis of lies - for reasons unknown.
We went to war in the wrong way:In the commentary thread to Jack's article titled, "The good guys are winning in Iraq" which he posted on 10-21-05, I wrote:

The problem is this: This worthless #$^%%# dry drunk piece of $%^$## incompetent commander and chief is rapidly creating a situation where we cannot win. As listed above the American people were not adequately prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to win. The American people are losing patience with the war and will soon demand our withdrawal. We went in without enough troops.

To that I would add that, as a result of our refusal to allow the UN inspectors to finish their work - because we already had a date penciled in to start bombing - we failed to build a real coalition. We sent our troops in without enough armor. We had a great plan for war, but no plan for peace. Well our great plan worked. We have got war.
We fought the war in the wrong way: In the same commentary thread from Jack's article listed above, I wrote:

We disbanded the Iraqi army there by leaving weapons all over the country for insurgents and creating millions of unemployed disaffected young men. We gave no-bid contracts to Haliburton instead of employing Iraqis. Bush either knew or should have known about the torture in Abu Ghireb. The list is just endless.

It is possible that we will still have a good outcome in Iraq in spite of the incompetence, lies and amorality of this corrupt administration... however if we do have a good outcome, 100% of the credit belongs to the courageous American soldiers and to the noble intentions of the American people who may win this in spite of President King George the Second. It steadily becoming increasingly unlikely… less troops then the Generals wanted, Rumsfeld setting the preconditions for torture at Abu Ghireb and Gitmo, failing to train Iraqi security forces fast enough, disbanding the Iraqi Army, giving no bid contracts to Haliburton instead of local Iraqi contractors, failing to rebuild, failing to create a real coalition, lies, lies and more lies, and on and on,

We managed Iraq in the wrong way after we "won." Of coarse this overlaps with; no-bid contracts, disbanding the Iraqi Army, AbuGhireb, not enough body armor, and not enough troops, but I would add: Micro-managing the war by political civilian leadership (Rumsfeld), for political civilian reasons, that prevented the military from making the necessary strategic and force adjustments to deal with the mess that we sent them into. The same mistake we made in Vietnam... If you are going to tell the Generals to fight a war - you need to take the "gloves off" and let them fight it. Bush does a good job of giving lip service to this idea, but the reality is quite different. For example, they did not send in enough troops because of the political ramifications. They needed to convince the American people that it would be quick, cheap, and easy. In reality, competent leaders, if they were going to lead us to war, would have done the exact opposite. They would have prepared the American people by explaining in detail that it would or could be long, extremely costly, and painful. But the American people would not have supported the truth so they micro-managed the military for political purposes - and they got their war - and now our sons and daughters are dying in far lands on the basis of lies, for reasons unknown.
We iced out international partners that could have helped.Even after the war, we could have gotten France, Germany, and Russia to support the rebuilding of Iraq, but we wanted all of the plunder for Haliburton, so we iced them out of the rebuilding contracts. God, we could use them now - but now - it is too late. We wanted the plunder - instead - our treasure is being plundered. Senator Joe Biden still thinks that it would possible to get regional powers to participate int he stabilization of Iraq - but it won't happen until we have "regime change" in Washington DC. See: Biden Video.
And now there is little doubt that we will leave Iraq in the wrong way.Bush is already drawing troops out. Iraq is descending into civil war, and he is drawing the troops out. And... he is probably right... as mentioned above - I don't know what to do - but it is obvious that he is drawing them out for political reasons - because the war is unpopular - which is the wrong reason. We need competent leadership, like Biden, Murtha, or Weasley Clark

Illegal Wiretapping is Illegal

2006-04-04T19:51:00.000-07:00

We must fight to force Bush II to accept the rule of law...to accept that he must not spy on Americans without Constitutionally mandated oversight from the Congress and the Judiciary. Republican Senator Arlen Spector seems to be the only Senator with real power fighting for American civil liberties. The Democrats can do virtually nothing because they do not control congress. Senator Spector's attempt to fashion legislation is hampered by the fact we still do not know what the Bush Administration is actually doing. His legislation is also pointless until the Bush Administration either agrees, or is forced, to accept the rule of law, and accepts that its executive powers are not limitless. We must have a full investigation and find out exactly what the Bush Administration is doing. Under questioning by Senator Joeseph Biden before Arlen Spector's committee Attorney General Alberto Gonzalas admitted that he could not certify that the full extent of the NSA wiretapping program has been disclosed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601001.html.

We do know that there are other domestic spying programs including illegal Pentagon spying http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/24010res20060201.html and illegal spying by the FBI and the JTTF http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spyfiles/24011res20060131.html. There seems to be a pattern of violating basic American civil liberties here.
Many Americans believe that we must chose between being tough on terrorists and protecting our Constitutional Fourth Amendment rights. This simply is not true. It is true that we must be tough on terrorists. It may even be true that the FISA law may need to be updated. There will doubtless be some Republicans who will use the same tired line that we Democrats are soft on terrorists. But fighting for American civil liberties - as our founding fathers fought for American civil liberties - has nothing to do with being soft. The Republicans have all of the power in this government. Why does there only seem to be one that is really fighting for us?
This (Bush admins spin) idea that we should not be concerned about domestic spying as long as we have nothing to hide is ridiculous. He, or some future president, could use this awesome power to spy on political rivals, and use the information to political advantage, there by undermining our Constitutional Democracy. He, or some future president, could use this excessive Unconstitutional power to spy on journalists in order to get advance warning of negative news stories so that he can be prepared to lie and politically spin the situation, there by undermining our Constitutional Democracy. "Power corrupts." If this massive, unbalanced, power is successfully gathered into the Presidency, with no Judicial oversight - with no Congressional oversight - with absolutely no checks and balances... some future President will abuse it.

More of Ray's Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words

2006-03-20T08:13:00.000-08:00

Bush (Bŭsh΄) Adjective. Democratic meanings: See Failure. 1.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as incompetent. 2.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as dishonest. 3.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as Nazi. 4.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as President. 5.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as stupid. 6.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as chicken hawk. 7.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as idiot, dry drunk, gun slingin, no account, failure. 8.) Filthy four letter word, loosely translated as King George the Incompetent. 9.) Filthy four letter word… period. Republican meanings: 1.) Simple, revered, bold, courageous – misunderstood, innocent, slandered, moral - wise, flawless, patriotic, straight forward, common sensical underdog. The Republicans are a naïve lot.

More of Ray's Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words

2006-03-20T07:28:00.000-08:00

Fatwa (Făt΄-wă) noun. 1.) Osama's ravings. 2.) The opinion of an Islamic leader. 3.) A rational for killing innocent people. 4.) An order for warrantless wiretaps. 5.) An excuse to subvert The Constitition of the United States of America 6.) Republican, for the ravings of Godless hordes of non-Christians. 7.) Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of a democratically elected foreign leader while he has a mass murdering dictator as a business partner.

Faith (Fāth) noun. 1.) Belief in things unseen, but known in one's deepest core. As in: I have faith that the Bush Regime is lying to the American people. 2.) The idea that George Bush will not abuse the awesome power of warrantless wiretaps and the Unitary Executive to subvert The Constitution of the United States of America. 3.) The idea that some future President will not abuse the awesome power of warrantless wiretaps and the Unitary Executive to subvert The Constitution of the United States of America, if George the Second gets away with consolidating that much illegal, unbalanced, unchecked, unconstitutional power in the office of the Presidency. 4.) The belief by neo-cons that George the Incompetent is above the law. 5.) The blind belief that Dick Cheney will not shoot you, if you go hunting pet birds with him, after he has been drinking. 6.) The cute, naive, innocent quaint, and blind belief by neo-cons that creating a democracy in a country full of people that hate us will produce a country that loves us. 7.) A comforting belief to have when your life is passing before your eyes after Dick Cheney has shot you in the face and heart. 8.) The idea that electronic voting machines with no paper trails are actually posting your vote in the same way that you cast it. 9.) A comforting, uplifting, meaningful belief in God. 10.) A religion that turns its rigid fundamentalist dogma into a craven image of God. See Pat Robertson. See Osama bin Laden. 11.) The neo-con idea that you can force somebody to be free.

Faith Based (Fāth Bās-dŭ) noun. 1.) A belief that does not make any sense and therefore must be taken on faith. 2.) The antonym of fact based. 3.) The Republican agenda. 4.) A belief, program, or initiative based on religion.5.) Attempting to base one's life on one's understanding of God's will.

The Invisable Hand of the Market Place

2006-03-13T18:02:00.000-08:00

We should be promoting the best interest of the American people in international trade. The Bush Regime, the Republicans, and even to a lesser extent the Democrats, all serve the interests of the global multinational corporate oligarchy.

I believe in free trade. The policies of this regime have always been ideally suited to serving the interests of the rich powerful and privileged elite against the interest of the working class, poor and disenfranchised.

China does not allow their currency to float. They hold the price of their currency artificially low relative to the dollar. They allow corporations to rape the environment and unfairly exploit their workers. These are subsidies. We pay a hidden price when corporations rape the environment in China because we live in one world - one ecology - and the winds carry the pollution here.

The corporations do not want true free trade. They want labor (slave labor) and hidden environmental subsidies, and when subsidies exist, everybody loses. The corporate mantra for free trade is actually an Orwellian chant meaning; let us rape, destroy, and exploit for short term profit and pleasure, without having to concern ourselves with the long term costs that our descendants will be forced to pay.

So, the protectionist are naive but they are reacting to those real loses.

I would suggest a free trade, invisible hand of the market place, compromise that would be at least an improvement on the current situation. We know that our government - Democratic or Republican - is as a result of our campaign finance situation - pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of big business. So we cannot trust the government to enforce human rights, environmental, or child labor rules. International agencies are even less effective.

I think a good free market approach to this problem would be to create seals of approval sort of like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Create a child labor seal of approval. Create an environmental seal of approval. Create a human rights seal of approval. Pass a law that requires products sold in the U.S. to clearly display two sets of the seals on it, or on its packaging. One set would relate to the raw materials that where used to manufacture the product. The other set would relate to the manufacturing of the product.

Companies would be free to lie and put any seal on thier product that they wanted to. But give child labor, environmental activists, and human rights groups the right to sue any corporation that sells products in the U.S. - in order to force the company into accurate compliance with the seals of approval. Do not allow any monetary damages in the law suits - only the right to obtain court orders forcing accurate seal of approval labeling - this would prevent frivolous law suits and ensure that activists only brought suits against violators.

The child labor seal of approval for example could contain three levels - green, yellow, and red. Green would be a certification that no child labor was used. Yellow would certify that any child labor that was used at least met some minimum standard of safety and human rights. Red would indicate that child slave labor was used to obtain the raw material or manufacture the product. Then let the American people decide whether they wanted to buy the product or not. Let the child labor activist groups police the issue and sue the most egregious violators. When company "A" saw that their competitor, company "B" was cheating the system, company "A" would inform and support the appropriate activist group, in order to force company "B" into accurate compliance with the seals of approval.

The same sort of thing could be done with environmental and human rights issues.

This would not constitute a trade barrier. Any country or company is free to manufacture their products where ever and however they want, and to sell those products in the U.S. But they have to display the seals of approval and they are subject to legal action in a U.S. Court if they lie. Any country or company has the ability to make sure that their products are manufactured without child labor, environmental rape, or human rights violations. Countries can control their country and companies can control where their products are manufactured, how they are manufactured, and who they hire to manufacture them. The same applies to the raw materials that are used to manufacture the products.

I just used child labor as one example. We don't have an efficient way of knowing which companies and products use child labor. We know that globally we do have a major problem with child labor. Globally we also have major problems with slavery, human rights and environmental abuse. The following links for child labor, human rights, and environmental abuse involving Coke and Nike are two examples. Of coarse, these have been in the news but forcing companies to put labels on their products would make consumers much more well informed at time that they make their purchases.

Nike

Coke

These is a complicated problem. Protectionism and isolationism does not work. But we can give all of our work away through so called free trade, and redistribute all of our wealth, and the world is still going to be poor, and so will we. Shipping our work to low wage countries drives our wages down but also provides inexpensive products for us. I think most of those cost savings go into the pockets of corporate profits. Still, the profits do get distributed through stock dividends. But much of the dividends that are paid go to the rich, and increasingly to foreign countries as result of the massive trade deficits that we run which gets reinvested in American stocks. As a result of the way we finance campaigns these multinational (American) corporations have an excessive amount of power and essentially form an oligarchy that controls our country. Inexpensive products and corporate profits create cash flows that can be reinvested in the U.S. and around the world which can expand production - bake a bigger pie - for all of us to share. So this is not a static problem. It has many variables and is extremely dynamic. Every change that you make has many intended and unintended (often unexpected) effects.

I think that my idea, that I listed above, of creating mandatory seals of approval for child labor, environmentalism, human rights, and perhaps also one for the fair trading practices of the country of manufacturing origin, should be given more serious consideration. It would be one way to at least begin to level the playing field to some slight degree without creating trade barriers.

The so called invisible hand of the market place can work to resolve many issues but there are too many things that are not accounted for in the economic system like the environment, the safety of children, and human rights. What is the economic value or cost of Coca-cola plant managers having eight union leaders killed in Columbia? How does one account for that in the economy? It saves Coke money, therefore it is good for the economy - unless it costs them sales - which it can if it gets publicised. My seal of approval idea, as listed above, would force Coke to publicise it.

UAE - Ports - and Free Trade

2006-02-24T19:25:00.000-08:00

Free markets are necessary for free trade but not quite the same. In order for free trade to exist between countries both countries must have free markets. If only one country has a free market then free trade is impossible.

I am one of the few "economics" enlightened liberals that believes in free trade. While there will always be individual winners and losers free trade - real free trade that is - benefits everyone. But here is the problem, China does not have an open free market. Japan does not have an open free market. Central America does not have a free market. And the UAE does not have a free market.

What happens when a free market economy like the U.S. trades with a closed economy like Japan, China, or Mexico? What happens is that the free market economy (that would be us) gets cheated. Take Mexico or China as examples. Both countries allow multinational corporations to evade environment laws and basic rights of workers to collective bargaining, as well as, health and safety. So, so called American multinational corporations - which are granted full human rights status as people under the U.S. Constitution - including the right to $$$free speech$$$ - but which have no moral or patriotic commitments to the United States can go to these countries and rape the environment that everyone in the world depends on for survival - and they can rape, cripple, kill, and unfairly exploit the workers. These factors create defacto subsidies for these corporations to move production to these countries. Therefore these countries are not practicing free trade. They are subsidising the corporations to move production to their country. This puts downward pressure on the ability of American workers to earn a living wage under survivable working conditions. It is a race to the bottom.

In true free trade, production would move to these countries, but they would need pollution control equipment - standard of living and wages would rise - which would create new markets for American products - which would create new economic opportunity for Americans. That is not happening. More and more of our productive capacity - more and more of our economic power - more and more of our "equity" and ownership of our own country, is transferred over the border as we borrow more and more money to buy more and more products from more and more countries that cheat us in international trade by subsidising our amoral multinational corporations to transfer production to their countries without giving us a fair opportunity to sell our products to them.

Japan is a little different case. They invaded our markets while keeping their markets closed to us. Their markets are still largely closed to us. They cheated us starting in the 70s and they are still cheating us.

Increasing industrial productive capacity in China combined with decreasing industrial capacity in the U.S. will make China into the worlds only super-power.

So... it is clear that the real agenda of the Bush Regime is to serve the amoral UnAmerican American multinational corporations, and that this regime does not care about the real interests of the American people.

So... the UAE does not practice free trade and that is reason enough to deny them this deal.

It has been pointed out by others that this company is tied to the UAE government. That being the case, it is reasonable to look at the UAE and question their intentions and sympathies. Others have pointed out that there is clear evidence to suspect that the UAE has terrorist sympathies. It has already been pointed out by others that even assuming that this company is innocent it is reasonable to wonder if they have been infiltrated.

If I were Osama, and I wanted to be able to ship WMD around the world, I would like to have some friends in the shipping business. The easiest way to infiltrate the shipping industry would be to infiltrate the Arab shipping industry and then migrate from there. Now that is all speculation - yes - but reasonable suspicion.

Sure the Coast Guard provides security. The police provide security on your street, but they don’t know what really goes on on your street as well as you do. Your boss controls your office, but does he really know what people talk about the water cooler. He probably does. He probably spies on you. The point is simply this, people on the inside have access to inside information - hence the term inside job.

So this is clearly an issue that raises security concerns, and the fact the this Regime would rubber stamp this deal without a full blown investigation is, at the very least, another example that Bush is still reading “MY PET GOAT.” It is “hard work”, sounding out all of those big words. That is the best face that you can put on this.

A little more of Ray's Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz words and Phrases

2006-02-19T21:37:00.000-08:00

Estate Tax (Ĕstāt΄ Tăx) noun. 1.) The fair tax levied against the rich for the explicit purpose of leveling the playing field from one generation to the next and preventing the establishment of virtual Royalty in the United States of America. As in: America is the land of opportunity and someone who has the privilege of becoming rich should pay an estate tax, thereby donating much of their riches back to the public good when they die, and allow their children to become rich the old fashioned way – by working for it.

Ethics (Ĕth-ēēks΄) Adjective. 1.) An archaic term describing something that has not existed in the Whitehouse for over fifty years. 2.) A class that President George Bush the Second has ordered taught, in order to restore honor and dignity to the Royal Court… er… um… Whitehouse… 3.) Core traditional Republican values. 4.) Core traditional Democratic values. 5.) Doing “not just what is legal” but “doing what is right”. 6.) The types of political processes used by President George Bush to advance the administration’s agenda. As in: We got values – you see. 7.) The opposite of Karl Rove. 8.) The opposite of Dick Cheney. 9.) The opposite of… Oh… you get the point.

Extremist (Ĕx-trēm΄-ǐstss) noun. 1.) The other guy. 2.) Republican. 3.) Democrat. 4.) Pat Robertson. 5.) Dick Cheney. 6.) Donald Rumsfeld. 7.)Osama bin Laden 8.) Me.

Fag (Făg) See Karl Rove Adjective. 1.) A derogatory term used by homo-phobes (see Republican) to describe Godless hordes of homosexual men (see Democrat) that threaten to overwhelm the American way of life (see missionary position).

Electoral System

2006-02-18T12:08:00.000-08:00

I have lost respect for McCain because I think that he has sold out to Bush in order to position himself to run for President. I have lost respect for Hillary for the same reason - plus I just don't like dynasties at the Presidential level. Worse, I don't think that she is electable. I like Mark Warner, Joe Biden, or Wesley Clark.

I liked McCain (I might even have voted for him) and I thought McCain and Bradley would have been far better candidates in 1999. I thought Clark, Gephart, or Dean would have been better candidates in the last election. It is clear that McCain would have been more electable than George Bush. I also believe that Bradley would have been more electable than Gore. In our electoral system it is often the case that the best most popular candidates never get the opportunity to run.

This highlights one of the problems with our electoral system (Scientific American has some very good articles on this). Some decades ago there was a move toward open primaries in an attempt to democratise the choosing of candidates. Prior to that party bosses had a lot of influence in choosing the candidates. The problem is this, the party bosses at least had some connection to the grass roots base of the party. Now, with open primaries the so called "free speech" of big money special interests have a much louder voice in choosing the nominees. So, the process is actually less democratic. The current system means that candidates have to sell themselves to $special interst$ and to the party base instead of to the main stream of America. This is good for $$$special interest$$$, and it is good for party base activists like me, because our voices resonate more loudly. It is not good for the United States of America. The loudest voice by far in picking candidates, and in electing them, is the $$$free speech$$$ of special interests.

It has been a while since I read the articles in Scientific American, so my senile Reagan-esc mind is fuzzy on the all important details... but... one of the problems with the current system is that; if you like someone like Nader or Buchanan, you either have to throw your vote away by trying to vote for a "winner" or, you have to throw your vote away by voting for the obvious "loser". This is hardly democratic and will not express the real will of the people in either case.

One, of many alternatives, that addresses these and other problems is rank order voting. So, if there where 5 candidates - your first choice would get 5 points - your second, 4 points - and so on. The candidate with the most points would win. People would put their names on the ballot by meeting some minimum standard of popular support, then voters rank their order of preferences. This allows things like voting for anybody but Bush - or anybody but Hillary. It would allow people to express a mandate or support for the ideas of someone like Nader or Buchanan without throwing their vote away.

There are many voting schemes to consider. Each scheme has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Many other schemes would do a better job of representing the will of the people than our current system.

Some more of Rays Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words

2006-02-15T12:15:00.000-08:00

Economy (Ē-cŏn-nō-mē΄) noun. 1.) The Holy Temple of the Almighty Dollar. 2.) A system of organizing labor, capital, and resources to produce the goods and services that people need. 3.) A system for making the rich richer. 4.) Something that is far less important than making sure that two adult men do not have the right to enter in to a civil contract of marriage. As in: People will vote against there own best interest on the economy in order to prevent gays from getting married – because?... if two consenting adult men got married – that would just be the end of the world – for sure – because?... all the closeted fags in the Christian right coalition would become liberated?... and run off and marry each other?...

Economist (Ē-cŏn-nō-mǐst΄) noun. 1.) The High and Holy Priest of the Holy Temple of the Almighty Dollar. 2.) Someone who advocates for “free trade” agreements like NAFTA that allow a third world country to subsidize industry by not demanding reasonable environmental standards or that workers be empowered to be anything more than slaves. Also someone who advocates for “free trade” agreements that allow third world countries to subsidize industry by not requiring any health and safety standards for workers. 3.) Someone trained to understand the complex inter-relationships between labor, capital, resources, and, goods and services. 4.) Someone who knows how to make the rich get richer on the blood, sweat, and tears of the working class. 5.) A General in the class war against God fearing hordes of subhuman workers.

Editorial (Ěd-ǐ-tōr΄-ē-ǐl) adjective. 1.) See Ray’s Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words. 2.) The opinion of an opinionated person. 3.) Political spin. 2.) The insightful comments of real journalist. 3.) The lies told by Fox News. 4.) The exercise of free speech, some of which, would not be worth paying for.

Election (Ē-lĕct΄-shŭn) noun. 1.) A fraudulent process for choosing U.S. Presidents. 2.) An important element of Constitutional Democracy. 3.) Something that can be bought with $$$free speech$$$. 4.) A system of one man one vote - as long as the man is not black and does not have a vagina (see Republican).

Electioneering (Ē-lĕct΄-shŭn-ēr-ǐng) verb. 1.) Republican meaning: To attempt to win votes by sending The Swift Boat Veterans for Lies onto TV talk shows. 2.) Democratic meaning: To get involved in a campaign.

Elected (Ē-lĕct΄-ǐd) verb. Republican Meanings: 1.) To get five Supreme Court Justices to vote for you in a close five / four election. 2.) To get your best Republican friend at Diebold to make electronic voting machines with no paper trail. 3.) To keep every Republican talking head to stick to, and continually repeat, exactly the same set of talking points, even after they have been proven to be flat out bald faced lies. Then there are the Democratic Meanings: 4.) To have five Supreme Court Justices vote against you in a close five / four election. 5.) To have no best Democratic friends that are in the business of manufacturing electronic voting machines without paper trails. 6.) Something that does not happen to Democratic Presidential candidates.

Endorsement (Ěn-dōrs΄-mĕnt) noun. Republican Meanings: 1.) The signature on the back of the government handout checks from no-bid contracts. 2.) President Bush’s signature on pork barrel bills that build bridges to no where. 3.) Tom Delay’s signature on bribery checks from Jack Abramoff. 4.) Political support from Fox News. 5.) Political support from closeted Christian Right Coalition fag-a-phobes. The Democratic Meanings: 6.) The signature on the back of welfare checks. 7.) The signatures on petitions demanding free and fair elections. 8.) The support of all ten people in the Rainbow Coalition and the women’s movement.

Evil (Ēv΄-ǐl) noun. 1.) Homosexuality. 2.) Sodom me (that is really evil), and Gum more a (especially a mans gums more on a man), (but giving oral or any other kind of pleasure to a women is also evil… see missionary position). 3.) A state of existence, behavior, or action that is characterized by extreme self-centered, self-serving, spiritually bankrupt greed (see Republican – see no bid contract – see Jack Abramoff - see Haliburton – see especially, Pat Robertson taking contributions for aid to Africa, pretending to load a plane with aid, then turning the cameras off, taking the aid off from the plane, reloading the plane with mining equipment, and shipping that mining equipment to his business partner, the savage, vicious, brutal, mass murdering, dictator of Liberia, Charles Taylor – see that – if you want to see evil – see that ). 4.) See bombing third world peasants so that Haliburton and the oil oligarchy can make record profits.

Evil Doer (Ēv΄-ǐl Dö-ĕr) noun. 1.) Bushism for Osama bin Laden… takes one to know one… nuff said.

Evolution (Evǐl΄-lü-shŭn) noun. 1.) The excuses for going to war in Iraq. 2.) A faith based belief that contradicts the science of intelligent design. As in: The belief in evolution is based on the ridiculous idea that events in a natural universe will have natural causes. 3.) Scooter Libby’s account of his actions relating to the treasonous outing of an undercover CIA agent. 4.) George Bush’s policies on how to handle anyone who leaked classified information. 5.) George Bush’s policies for restoring honor and dignity to the Whitehouse. As in: George Bush’s policy of “We will do not just what is legal, we will do what is right” has evolved… (left wing commie pinko fag Democrats would say devolved - but that is just semantics) …has evolved into Karl Rove is OK as long as you cannot prove that he has actually committed the moral equivalent of treason. 6.) George Bush’s understanding of what the meaning of torture is is. 7.) The American people’s understanding of what Bill Clinton actually means when he says “lick my cigar”. 8.) Something that George Bush says has never happened to him - and - upon due and careful consideration - I have to agree with him.

More recent Additions to Rays Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words

2006-02-07T20:03:00.001-08:00

Democrat (Dĕm-mŏk΄-krăt) verb. Street slang. 1.) Meaning to run a weak Presidential campaign. noun. Republican Meanings: 1.) Godless tree hugging queer. 2.) Godless anti-American fag. 3.) Godless nigger loving gay guy. 4.) Godless pro-terrorist homosexual. 5.) Godless liberal, lesbo loving, sissy boy. The Democratic Meaning: 6.) A person with the traditional American values of equality, liberty, diversity, civil liberties, environmental stewardship of God’s green earth, and fighting for the poor and disenfranchised against the overwhelming power of the rich and privileged elite.

Defense (Dē΄-fĕnss) noun. 1.) Justification for the military / industrial complex.

Defense Intelligence (Dē΄-fĕnss Ĭn΄-tĕl-ǐ-gĕnss) noun. 1.) A well thought out military campaign involving the use of enough troops to maintain stability after victory is complete. 2.) Sending troops into combat with adequate armor. 3.) Torturing Arabs so that they no longer even know what the truth is, and will tell us whatever they think that we want to hear. 4.) Drawing pictures of fictional mobile bio-weapons labs on semi-trucks. 5.) Warrant-less spying on American enemies of His Highness President George Bush the Second. 6.) Really cool little remote controlled planes with big assed missiles.

Department of Justice (Dē-părt΄-mĕnt ŏv Jăs-tǐss΄) noun. 1.) An important department in the U.S. government charged with the responsibility of finding legal justification for subverting the Constitution of the United States of America by legalizing torture and illegal wiretaps.

Diplomacy (Dǐ-plōm΄-ă-sēē) noun. 1.) Refering to something that the U.S. no longer does since we allowed an idiot jackass gun slingin Texan to shoot his way into the Whitehouse - mind you - a gun slingin Texan would be fine – but the idiot jackass has to go. 2.) A process of finding and working cooperatively with international partners to achieve national objectives - but it really is “hard work” – so George Bush does not like it. 3.) A fun pastime in the Whitehouse involving the treasonous “outing” of the undercover CIA wives of diplomats.

Dissembling (Dǐs-sĕm-blǐng΄) transitive verb. 1.) Politician talking to voters.

Dynasty (Dī-năstē΄) noun. 1.) American meaning. A group of Kings… er… Presidents from the same family line. 2.) The Bush family. 3.) The Clinton family? 4.) The Kennedy family – by the way - I might be a distant kissin cousin – on my sister / Mom’s side.

The World Can't Wait Protest in Washington

2006-02-06T21:27:00.000-08:00

News reports state that there were between 1000 and 2000 protesters at the World Can't Wait to Drive out the Bush Regime protest in Washington. Another source told me that there were about 4000. It certainly seemed to me that there were a lot more than 2000. In any case the turn out was disappointing to those of us who feel passionately about what the "Disgrace on the Presidency" has done to undermine and subvert our Constitutional Democracy and to defile the American flag that symbolizes all of our shared American ideals. There should be millions of people in the street. There were 4000. This is our country. This is our flag. We must fight to protect it. Where were you? Why weren't you marching with us?

We must fight to force Bush II to accept the rule of law...

to accept that he must not spy on Americans

without Constitutionally mandated oversight

from the Congress and the Judiciary.

Under the evil genius Karl Rove, the Bush Regime has became superb propagandists. They have used demonstrably misleading, false, repetitious, "proto-fascist big lie" style talking points to confuse many Americans into believing that we must chose between being tough on terrorists and protecting our Constitutional Fourth Amendment rights against being spied on without a warrant... without judicial oversight... without any checks on unbridled executive authority. The FISA Court would allow everything that Bush claims that he is doing, so, why does he want to set himself above the law, and claim this excessive, and unconstitutional executive power for the Presidency? Does he want to be King?

For the sake of argument, lets ( you) assume the very best. Assume that Bush really does just want this power in order to protect us from terrorists. Assume that he will not use this excessive Unconstitutional power to spy on political rivals, and use the information to political advantage, there by undermining our Constitutional Democracy. Assume that he will not use this excessive Unconstitutional power to spy on journalists in order to get advance warning of negative news stories so that he can be prepared to lie and politically spin the situation, there by undermining our Constitutional Democracy. Assume, if you must, that Bush will not use this massive Unconstitutional executive power to spy on powerful politicians, Supreme Court Justices, Journalists, high government and military officials, and business leaders, in an effort to find embarrassing or incriminating evidence that he could use to black mail them, there by undermining our Constitutional Democracy. Go ahead... you naive and foolish Republican... make all of these foolish and dangerous assumptions... fool... "Power corrupts." Excessive power corrupts excessively. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Bush probably is abusing this power... but even assuming that he is not abusing this power... Once this awesome, massive, unbalanced, excessive, Unconstitutional power is successfully gathered into the Presidency, do you really want to trust that some future President - like maybe Hillary - will not abuse this power... you idiot Republican... Do you really want to trust Hillary with that kind of power? I am a Democrat, but it would scare the bahgeebees out of me to think of Hillary or any other Democratic President having that kind of power - with no Judicial oversight - with no Congressional oversight - with absolutely no checks and balances... Bush is probably abusing this power, but if he is not, some future President will... some Republican... some Democrat... The power will be abused. Our Constitutional Democracy is hanging by a frayed thread. Are you Republicans daft? I say again... Where were you? Why weren't you marching in the streets with us?

2006-02-06T12:01:00.000-08:00

Too much cold rain... soaked to the bone... too many speakers... it is time to march. DRIVE OUT THE BUSH REGIME... www.worldcantwait.net

2006-02-06T11:44:00.000-08:00

Thad's sign.

2006-02-06T11:39:00.000-08:00

The world can't wait to drive out the Bush Regime.

2006-02-06T11:33:00.000-08:00

More police in front of the White House - if we accomplishished nothing else at least we got some overtime for our Boys in Blue.

2006-02-06T11:31:00.000-08:00

Cold, cold rain.

2006-02-06T11:30:00.000-08:00

Police in front of the White House.

2006-02-06T11:28:00.000-08:00

Cold rain - dedicated protesters.

2006-02-06T11:26:00.000-08:00

More signs.

2006-02-06T11:25:00.002-08:00

More signs.

2006-02-06T11:25:00.001-08:00

A Banner.

2006-02-06T11:25:00.000-08:00

Super Protester.

2006-02-06T11:24:00.001-08:00

More of the 4000 protesters against Bush on 2-4-06 in Washington D.C.

2006-02-06T11:24:00.000-08:00

Protest speaker (www.worldcantwait.net) 2-4-06

2006-02-06T11:23:00.000-08:00

More Protesters.

2006-02-06T11:19:00.000-08:00

Four thousand Americans protesting against Bush in Washington D.C. on 2-4-06. Organised by www.worldcantwait.net

2006-02-06T09:42:00.000-08:00

Vietnam Memorial - Respect for the brave soldiers who died doing thier duty in the last mis-guided, incompetently civialian micro-managed, American war.

Recent Additions to Ray's Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words and Phrases

2006-01-28T10:47:00.000-08:00

Child Labor (Chīld Lāb΄ōr) noun. 1. Tom Delay’s paid girl friends in the Northern Marianas Islands which are U.S. territories that Tom protected from child labor and slavery laws. Children are forced into prostitution and routinely forced to have abortions. Tom Delay does not mind. He is not opposed to abortion. He is just opposed to choice. As long as you are forcing the women one way or the other – it is OK. His position is very consistent and clear.

CNN (Sēē΄ –ĕn-ĕn) noun. 1.) Twenty four hour news, mostly about nothing. As in: You would think that you would have to use some real substance to fill twenty four hours – but you don’t – just repeat yourself once every five minutes – and you don’t have to ever tell anybody anything at all. So, CNN is really the five minute news network. It is a great service. People are busy and need to get the major news of the day in five minutes – so tell me – why do people like me watch the five minute news for five hours?

Coitus (Cö΄-tŭs) noun. 1.) What George Bush done to the United States. 2.) What George Bush done to John Kerry. 3.) What George Bush done to John McCain. 4.) What George Bush done to his partners in the oil business. 5.) Sex. 6.) Republican meaning: Man on top of women holding her down. 7.) Democratic Meaning: Monica, I don’t want to have sex with you… but… will… you… lick my cigar… for me… you lick it good… Oh!... SO!... GOOD!...

Darwinian Evilution (Dăr-wǐn΄-ē-ǐn Ēv-ǐl΄-lū-shŭn) noun. 1.) Similar to Darwinian evolution except that it is evil because it contradicts the literal word of God as interpreted by fundamentalist Christians.

Anti-Bush Bumper Sticker

2006-01-26T20:54:00.000-08:00

A guy on eBay that sells Anti-Bush bumper stickers was nice enough to add a link to my blog so here is a link to his bumper sticker ad. It is magnetic and says Proud of America / Ashamed of Bush. I bought one. Just paste this link into your address bar (I am not sure how long it will work): search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&satitle=PRO-America%2BANTI+Bush+Car+Magnet+Bumper+Sticker

A little more substantive...

It feels to me as if we are getting scandal fatigue in regards to the Republicans and Bush. I am sure some people have a real life and don't bother to follow these things - but I am burnt out on the scandals... Plamegate... Abramoff... Delay... Illegal wire tapping... Unitary Executive / subversion of constitutional democracy... Iraq... Katrina... Refusing to cooperate with congressional investigation of Katrina... No-bid contracts... Extremist Supreme Court nominee Alito. The list is endless. Which one to focus on? I can't keep track of them all... to focus on one is to distract from the others. I think that our country is in real trouble. President Bush's incompetence in Iraq, illegal wire tapping, and the Unitary Executive have to be near the top of the list in terms of importance.

Iraq

I was opposed to the war from the start. It was clear at the time that Bush was not giving the UN or inspectors time to work. It was clear at the time that there was real risk of civil war and regional instability. It was clear at the time that Bush was making the same mistake that was made in Viet Nam by allowing civilian leadership to micro-manage the war and not listening to the Generals who insisted that we needed many more troops. It was clear at the time that a "democratic" government in Iraq might well be Islamist extremist like Iran (and like Hamas) and in which case it would undermine America's legitimate national interest in the region. It was clear at the time that Bush wanted control of Iraqi oil for his oil buddies. It was clear at the time that going into Iraq would divert our attention from the real threat Osama. It was clear at the time that Saddam would never cooperate with a religious extremist terrorist. Osama hated Saddam as much as he hated us. Brutal dictators would love to be able to use terrorist - but they need command and control - which is something that you can never have with a religious zealot (like Pat Robertson) - religious zealots march to the beat of a different drum. They are loose cannons rolling around on the deck. There is no telling which way they will be pointing when they go off. Saddam was not stupid. What would Osama do if Saddam had been stupid enough to give him WMD? Think about it... this is not rocket science. Osama is not stupid either. He hates Saddam. He hates the U.S. Lets say just for the sake of discussion that Saddam had stupidly gave poison gas to Osama. Osama would simply bring it to New York... release it in the subway... kill a few Americans... and just accidentally leave a few telltale clues creating a trail that would lead the CIA right straight back to Saddam. The U.S. would then destroy Saddam. WhaLah Allah, two points for Osama... minus one point for Saddam... minus one point for the U.S. Saddam would have to have been an absolute complete idiot to give WMD to Osama. Saddam was no idiot, so , it was always obvious from the very start that there was never the slightest danger that Saddam would give WMD to Osama. It was always obvious from the very start that attacking Iraq would provide a recruitment boost for al-Qaeda.

That said, I believe in playing to win - I believe in winning wars - if we can win - but as Shakespeare penned in Macbeth "doubtful it stands as two spent swimmers that do cling together and choke the art". If we could leave Iraq better than we found it, it would help stabilize the region - that is a big if however, and even if we did succeed the cost of doing so would clearly be counter-productive.

Think about it - our recruitment is down - Osama's recruitment is way up - plus Jihadists go to Iraq and are given the priceless gift of live combat training against the most powerful army in the world. Most of them will die of coarse - but the few that survive - the few that survive are going to be "double plus" tough. Osama does not care how many die. He is a baby killer. The Jihadists don't care about dying. They get to go to heaven and have sex with ninety nine virgins... er... is it seventy seven... they get plenty of good sex. The question now is: Can we even win in Iraq?... or... has the war already become unwinnable as a result of Bush's incompetence?

There is not enough electronic ink in the world to fully articulate Bush's incompetence as a commander and chief... not enough troops to control the country after Saddam fell... disbanding the Iraqi army and sending them home with truck loads of weapons, no job, and no money... not creating a real international coalition in the first place, the second place, or ever... ordering, or condoning, or at least creating an atmosphere that allowed Abu Ghireb and torture... I will not belabour the point. It is obvious Bush is an incompetent commander and chief and whatever slim chance that we had of winning has slipped, or is rapidly slipping away.

The world cannot wait. We must force him and Cheney out of office now. We need regime change. We must force Cheney to resign - much like Spiro Agnew did - be replaced by someone of Bush's choosing - perhaps McCain - and then Bush must be forced to resign. there are protest being organised by www.worldcantwait.net Go to that site - join the protest - force regime change now.

Osama's Alive... or is he?

2006-01-21T18:10:00.000-08:00

Just a few words on this Osama tape. I don't have nearly enough time to fully articulate my thoughts. But... No doubt you already know that the tape has been validated as authentic and is thought to have been made recently because Osama says:
"In response to the substance of the polls in the U.S., which indicate that Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to".

It is possible, as others have pointed out that Osama could have made many permutations of tapes in the past allowing for different possible future developments. In that way tapes could be periodically released even after he is dead. So the tape does not prove that he is even still alive.

I find interesting that every time Bush the Second gets into trouble another Osama tape surfaces. Why is that? A number possibilities come to mind - some of which are wild eyed conspiracy theories - some are not so wild. First, it is clear that Bush the Second A.K.A. "The Disgrace on the Presidency" is the prime beneficiary of these tapes. The last tape was released just before the election in 2004. Since Bush II was incorrectly perceived as being strong on national security, the release of a tape that increased people's security concerns was to Bush's political advantage, and probably put him over the top in the close election. Now, Bush is in trouble over illegally spying on Americans. Another tape that has the effect of terrorizing Americans can only have the effect of making them more willing to sacrifice their privacy and civil liberties in exchange for security. And... low and behold, at the most opportune time for Bush, another tape appears... Strange... uncanny... isn't it? How? Why?

One possibility is that Osama is stupid and does not anticipate the effect that these tapes will have. Osama does not seem stupid - but maybe.

The Second possibility is that Osama needs to release tapes periodically in order to rally the troops, and that he simply can't find a better time to release the tape, because any time that he releases the tape, will play to "The Disgrace's" advantage. That possibility just does not hold water. For example, Osama could have released the first tape right after Bush got re-elected in that way there would have been no "danger" of helping Bush get re-elected and it would have undermined Bush's efforts to gut Social Security. So, it is clear, that if Osama wanted to hurt Bush there are better times to have released the tapes.

The third, somewhat wild eyed possibility is that "The Disgrace" has actually captured or killed the baby killer Osama, and has either forced Osama to make some new tapes or captured a library of tape permutations as mentioned above, and is releasing them at times that are politically opportune for Bush II. That makes some sense - except if Bush had actually captured or killed Osama, it would be a big feather in his cap - it seems that he would want to brag about it. You can develop a conspiracy theory where he would not - Osama is a big hole card for Bush - why play it - but it seems a bit of a stretch.

Bush could have faked a tape - but Osama could then produce a real tape and expose Bush - so this seems unlikely - unless "The Disgrace Bush" is pretty sure that Osama is dead but can't prove it enough to be able to take advantage of it. This seems unlikely - too many holes.

So, the possibility that makes the most sense to me, is that Osama or his successors, who possess a library of tape permutations as mentioned above, have released the tape with the intention of helping Bush. Why would they want to help Bush? It is quite simple. They know that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to them. Under "The Idiot's"... er... I mean "The Disgrace's" leadership tens of millions of Muslims have shifted form simply hating the United States into wanting to become terrorists and actively join the Jihad against the Uuited States. Under Bush's "leadership" thousands of Jihadists have traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq and have received the "priceless" gift of live combat training against the most powerful army in the world. Of coarse most of them will die - but a baby killing terrorist like Osama does not care about that - the ones who survive in the face of the U.S. Military - will - to use Bush style Orwellian speak - the ones who survive in the face of the U.S. Military will be double plus tough - live combat trained - battle seasoned. And tens of millions of others have and will join the cause. They will provide money, safe houses, networks, documents, war materials... George Bush is the best wet dream Osama bin Laden ever had.

Nuclear Power, The Iran Mess, More of Ray's Brief...

2006-01-18T18:21:00.000-08:00

Nuclear Power

The solution to the nuclear waste problem is a little more of the hair of the dog that bit us. Fast Breeder Reactors can solve the nuclear waste problem for us. It is a little more problematic for the Iranians. Current heavy water reactors use only one percent of the available energy in the nuclear fuel. The waste products remain dangerous for thousands and thousands of years (over ten thousand I think) because they have a long half life. How do you store something safely for over ten thousand years? You don’t. You can’t. Reprocessing that fuel for fast breeder reactors can use the other 99% and the waste products that were left would only remain dangerous for a couple hundred years. Furthermore, the spent fuel rods could be reprocessed of site and would not have to be transported and exposed to risk. New fast breeder designs are also intrinsically safer than the current heavy water reactors. There is a good article about this in December 2005 issue of Scientific American. You can view at least part of the article at: www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000D5560-D9B2-137C-99B283414B7F0000

Nuclear power is also better for the environment because it does not add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. On the down side though, fast breeder reactors do produce bomb grade material - so that is a problem for nuclear proliferation unless the fuel cycle is tightly controlled through monitoring. Fast Breeder reactors can burn the bomb grade material that they produce as well as bomb grade material from decommissioned warheads.

The Iran Mess

This Iran mess is just one more example of this disgrace on the Presidency’s incompetence. He pushed Iran into it by naming them part of the axis of evil and by saying that he was coming after them. Then he wears our Army out and ties them down in Iraq - and he has never been any good at diplomacy - what a mess. then he claims the powers of a king through the theory of the Unitary Executive. He thinks that he is above the law. He thinks that he can still order torture inspite having signed the McCain anti-torture bill. He thinks that he can subvert the Constitution and order illegal warrant-less wiretaps on Americans. We need to drive the Unitary Executive out of power. It is the hope that I see and there is precious little of it. There is a protest being organised to correspond with his state of the union address on Jan 31 around the country and in Washington on Feb. 4. Information is available at www.worldcantwait.org

More of Ray's Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words and Phrases

Consumer (Cŏn-sūm΄-ĕrr) noun. 1.) American.

Creationism (crē- ā –shun-iz΄- ĕm) noun. 1.) The whimsical, inventive, production of news stories by Fox News. 2.) Synonymous with “Intelligent Design” 3.) A faith based belief that God magically produced the universe. 4.) Intelligence about WMD. 5.) The faith based belief that events in the natural universe must have an extra-natural / supernatural cause.

Death Tax (Dĕath΄ Tăx) noun. 1.) The unfair gouging of the rich after they are dead. As in: I stole billions of dollars from the poor and working class, but I should not have to pay a death tax, because I should be able to take it with me, and / or my children should be entitled to live as aristocrats without ever having to make a meaningful contribution to society.

Disassembling (Dǐs-ă-sĕm-blēng) 1.) Bushism for dissembling. As in: George Bush really disassembles the truth. 2.) Bush doctrine to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. As in: Bush is disassembling the Constitution of the United States of America because he thought that his oath of office only applied to preserving, protecting and defending the actual piece of paper. See Strict Constructionist.

A little more of...

2006-01-16T19:56:00.000-08:00

Rays Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words and Phrases.

Air Force (Ār Fōrs) noun. 1.) A politician talking. 2.) A branch of the military.

Army (Ărmē) noun. 1.) A group of political pundits ready to spin Bush’s latest screw up. 2.) A group of lobbiest prepared to use their $$$FREE$$$ $$$SPEECH$$$ to buy… er… I mean influence the American democracy. 3.) A branch of the military.

Britt Hume (Brǐt Hūm) noun. 1.) Who? 2.) A very realistic humanoid robot programmed to spew right wing propaganda.

Campaign (Căm-pān΄) noun. 1.) A glorious opportunity to smear one’s opponent with mud at the expense of turning the American people off from politics – unless of coarse your opponent is the first, second, third, or fourth member of the Bush dynasty – then it is a glorious opportunity to tell the American people the truth about him – because our side never smears.

Capital (Căp-ǐ΄-tŭl) noun. 1.) How laws are made. 2.) How no-bid contracts are earned. 3.) Money. 4.) Free Speech (the rich and powerful get more it (free speech), so that they can get more of it (Capital).

Capitol (Căp-ǐ΄-tŭl) noun. 1.) The place where capital buys the laws and no-bid contracts.

More of Rays Brief Dictionary and a word about Alito

2006-01-15T08:17:00.000-08:00

First Alito. The Democrats should filibuster him if they have a chance of defeating him and forcing a more moderate nominee, otherwise, they should just keep their powder dry. So why, you might ask do I think that Alito is so bad?

He did not answer questions openly and directly at the confirmation hearings and it is clear that he outright lied about his long time membership in a racist / sexist organization. How could a man with such an exhaustive memory conveniently forget that he paid dues to a racist / sexist organization for 14 years. The result of his hedging, dodging, and lying is that we have no real clarity about how he would rule on major issues. The only clear information that we have on him is his record - but that is a lot of information. Since he was not honest and open at the confirmation hearings, I would suggest that we need to completely disregard everything that he said there, and base our decisions entirely on his extensive record.

Based on his writings and record it is clear that he has antipathy for Roe v Wade. He would over-rule it if he could. It is also clear that he is biased in favor of the government and big business. It is also clear that he shows extreme deference to executive power and was an author of the theory of the Unitary Executive.

First Roe v Wade. Who cares. So what if the government has the right control what a women does with her own body and reproductive organs - to do the effective moral / emotional equivalent of rape to her. George Bush was very clear and forthcoming about where he stood on that before "We the people" allowed him to gain a second term. Many pro-choice women and men voted for him because they allowed themselves to be terrorized by the Osama boogieman. Elections have consequences people. Now we face the prospect of watching 14 year old girls die from back alley coat hanger abortions - but we are getting the government that we deserve. Roe v Wade is no reason to block Alito.

Second, deference to big business. "We the people" knew that George the Second was sold out to big business before we elected him King. So we have nothing to cry about now. Shut up before King George really gives us something to cry about. This is no reason to block Alito.

Third, and finally deference to the government, the executive and authorship of the theory of the Unitary Executive. This is profoundly dangerous to our Constitutional Democracy.

There are polls out which suggest the 70% of the American people are OK with the fact that Bush authorized illegal wiretaps based on the Unitary Executive. They are willing to do that because they are afraid of Osama. OK, I understand the women being afraid, but men where are your nads? If you can't grow any of your own, do what I do, and take testosterone shots for God's sake. Listen, the impotent pissant Osama tragically killed around 3000 innocent Americans. That is about 1 in 100,000. Osama ia less dangerous than walking across a busy street. But, out of your fear of him, you are willing to sacrifice your freedom, your civil liberties, your privacy, your democracy... All of which millions of our forefathers fought and died to protect. Why did they bother? Not only are you willing to sacrifice your freedom, you are willing to sacrifice the freedom of all future generations. I say again, where are your nads? It is time to stand up and fight for the American way of life. It is demand Bush's resignation.

In the extreme form that Bush is applying it the theory of the Unitary Executive is that the president has the power to interpret the Constitution and is not bound by any law other than the Constitution and then only on his interpretation of it. Congress and the judiciary have to defer to the President almost completely. Bush has used the Unitary Executive to justify illegal wiretaps. He has used it to justify crossing his fingers behind his back when he signed the McCain anti-torture bill by issuing a signing statement that says that the the law does not apply to his Royal Himself. Bush has claimed and wants to continue to claim the power to wiretap Americans without any oversight by Congress or the Judiciary. Our founding fathers (mothers behind the scenes), our founding fathers wisely protected us from government spying. They knew that if the government - particularly the executive branch of the government - had an unrestrained right to spy on the American people - that the government would wind up abusing it and would subvert our democracy. so they design a form of government that included co-equal branches of government. Courts supervise the police and agencies with police powers like the FBI and the NSA. The President has executive powers and is Commander and Chief. The congress passes laws that even the President has to follow. Bush is the bad apple that has upset a 200 year old apple cart by claiming that he has superior powers. This is not about war time powers. Bush has formally claimed an end to "major combat operations". Our founders had the nads to know that it was better to risk terrorist attacks, like the assiassination of Lincoln, then to allow the government unrestrained power. If you give this power to Bush now, it will be abused to subvert our democracy - now or in future. Nixon used it to subvert democracy. Bush or some future President will do the same - probably with greater success. Alito was an author of this and he needs to be blocked - if we can block him.

It is time for Republicans, Independents, and Democrats to join together in defense of American Constitutional Democracy and demand that the Unitary Executive resign from power now. There are protest being planned around the country on 1-31-06 to correspond with Bush's state of the union address. There are also protest being planned in Washington DC for 2-4-06. For more information go to www.worldcantwait.org .

Now some excerpts from Ray's Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words and Phases:

Bushism (Bŭsh΄-ǐs-ĕm) noun. 1.) An imaginative, strikingly clever and wise saying by President George Bush. As in “We will do, not just what is legal, we will do what is right” – or - “I just want you to know, that when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace”. 2.) Neurological symptoms possibly resulting from excessive inbreeding. As in: What ism wrong with Bushism’s head?

Clintonism (Klǐn-tŏn΄-ǐs-ĕm) See lie. Noun. 1.) The definition of this term depends on what the meaning of is in ism is. As in: It is what it is – isn’t it?

Common Sense (Căhm-mŭn΄ Sĕnsss΄) noun. 1.) Synonymous with dissembling. As in: Bill Clinton used common sense when he lied about what is is. (in Texan: disassembling). As in: George W. Bush was using common sense when he disassembled the truth about WMD. 2.) A simple concise clear statement of the truth. 3.) A catchy 30 second sound bite about complex highly nuanced issues involving national security. As in: You see… uh… um… thar’s uh… bad people… uh… so… uh… um… we gotta… uh… uh… smoke em out… you see… its uh… just uh… um… common sense – you see.

Communism (Căhm-you΄- nǐzĕm) noun. 1.) Synonymous with the Democratic Party. As in: Those tax and spend Democrats are trying to balance the budget again. 2.) A form of government based on Karl Marx’s theory of political economy. As in: The rich will oppress the poor and working class until the economy collapses under the weight of their oppression and then the working class will have to create communism in order to keep things running. 3.) Compassionate conservatism. As in: George Bush has created a utopian socialist state for the rich by giving them government handouts, no bid contracts, tax breaks, allowing them to literally write their own legislation, and by starting a highly profitable war.

Compassionate Conservatism (Cŏm-păs-shŭn΄-nāt Cŏn-sĕrv-ă-tǐs΄-ĕm) noun. 1.) The application of principals of fiscal conservatism to help the poor and disenfranchised join the ownership society. As in: If we cut off their welfare, they will have to sell themselves into slavery, and we can own them. 2.) A method of creating low wage, wage slaves. 3.) A meaningless campaign slogan. 4.) A friendly conservative. 5.) A virulent and effective type of conservatism that uses insignificant social and cultural issues such as gay marriage to divide and conquer the ignorant masses and get them to vote against their own best interest. As in: We compassionate conservatives are going to create a culture of life by applying the death penalty to profoundly retarded convicts, cutting health care to the poor, and liberating the people of Afghanistan so that they are free to produce heroin which they can sell in the United States and then donate the proceeds to Osama bin Laden.

Constitutional Option (Cŏn-stǐ-tü΄-shŭn-ăl Ŏpt΄-shun) verb. 1.) Meaning to undermine the constitution. As in: Republicans will use the constitutional option to defeat the intentions of the founding fathers to maintain a balance of power between the branches of government and empower minority rights. In so doing, they will shift the balance toward pure democracy which is little different from mob rule. 2.) Meaning that the constitution is optional. As in: George Bush has ripped it up and used it for toilet paper as a result of the Patriot Act. 3.) A brisk walk. 4.) A filibuster.

Ray's Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words

2006-01-14T19:52:00.000-08:00

I am just getting started here. I hope that I am able to find the time to keep this up. For now, I will just cut and paste a couple of excerpts from Ray's Brief Dictionary:

A few bad apples (Ā fĕw băd΄ ăp΄-plès). noun. Synonymous with “Whitehouse officials”. As in: A few bad apples in the Whitehouse blamed low ranking soldiers in Abu Ghireb, Gitmo, Afghanistan, and CIA Black Sites for actually doing the things that were suggested in countless Whitehouse memos.
Affirmative Action (Ăf-fǐrm-ă΄-tǐv Ăkt΄-shŭn) Noun. 1.) Preemptive war. As in: George Bush took the affirmative action of spending over 300 billion dollars and conquering a weak Arab Nation which was ruled by a despotic secular dictator who obviously would never have trusted or cooperated with fanatical fundamentalist religious extremist – but it is A OK – most of the money went to Halliburton through no bid contracts see no bid contracts. 2.) The behavior of yes men in the administration of George the Second. As in: Top Whitehouse officials take the affirmative action of telling George Bush exactly what he wants to hear. 3.) The willful production of a false budget crisis. As in: George Bush took the affirmative action of cutting taxes for the rich with the intention of creating budget shortages so that he could have an excuse to cut vital services to the poor, elderly, and needy. 4.) The active creation of prewar intelligence. As in: The administration of George Bush took the affirmative action of cherry picking intelligence from highly dubious sources in order to make the case for war. 5.) The act of saving social security. As in George Bush took the affirmative action of pretending to try to save social security, while in point of fact, trying to privatize and destroy it, there by creating yet one more huge boondoggle for the rich… the rich who would have profited from the initial influx of capital into the stock market there by driving stock prices through the roof… the rich who would have profited again by buying up all of the cheap stocks after the stock market went back down when all of the baby boomers had to sell their stock at they same time… and the rich who also would have profited from all of the transaction fees in both directions… and the rich who would have profited by not having to help pay the baby boomers their social security that the baby boomers have worked their whole life to earn… and the rich who have already profited from the huge tax breaks that they were given - which just coincidentally - happened to be exactly equal to the excess social security payroll taxes that the baby boomers were paying into the general fund before they retire… so… George Bush wanted to act like he was saving social security. 6.) An archaic term referring to well intentioned, but naïve liberal attempts to arbitrarily achieve the American ideal of equality. 7.) Illegally money laundering corporate money through the Republican National Committee in order to subvert Texan State law. As in Tom Delay took the affirmative action of laundering corporate money through the R.N.C. in order to subvert democracy in Texas so that he could gerrymander Texas and subvert democracy in the U.S.A. Unfortunately he got the idea to gerrymander Texas from the Democrats who did it first. (see: Fool me once and ah… ah… as they say in Texas… ah… ah… two wrongs will make a lot of Republicans rich.)
American Way of Life (Ă-mĕr-ē΄-kăn Wā ŏv Līf) See Missionary Position... noun. 1.) (Republican meaning). The name of a particular sexually inhibited position for coitus. 2.) A collection of values – including; freedom, liberty, justice, equality and the rule of law, which are characteristic of American ideals and beliefs – but unfortunately not characteristic of American reality. 3.) A commitment to a liberal democratic form of government (liberal democratic form of government not a conservative democratic form of government). 4.) The holy dollar. 5.) The creation of political instability in the mid-east in order to drive oil prices and oil company profits through the roof. 6.) Sitting in traffic jams inside of big off-road SUVs. 7.) Orwellian speak, meaning an oligarchy of the rich and powerful manipulating the American people through so called cultural issues and the fear of terrorism, there by running American politics for their own profit and purpose. 8.) Being blessed to live in freedom and prosperity.