Barbarian America

The Supreme Court, which is packed with Republican right wing appointees, has now ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to own weapons of personal destruction. This is a departure from the existing understanding of the second amendment, and it represents activist right wing judges creating a right that did not previously exist. The New York Times editorial board weighs in on the decision:

This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain
and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also
diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United
States values gun rights over human life.

We still execute people at the same time that we refuse to provide health care to about 50 million of our own citizens, we now proudly tout our "right" to kill each other with guns, we invade and occupy foreign countries on false premises, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, and the list goes on and on. As a country we are barbarians. This is how we are viewed by other more civilized peoples.

Jim

The Hopelessness Of The Iraq Situation

Why are we in Iraq? What "national interest' is being served by our occupation of Iraq and our interference in the internal power struggles between factions of the various religious sects in that country? Yes, there's the oil, but nobody wants to talk about that. What is the "end game?" When will we withdraw? When we "win?" What does that mean? What is "victory" in Iraq?

The invasion of Iraq was illegal and was based upon a fictional "WMD" (Weapons Of Mass Destruction) premise. Now, five years later, 4000+ Americans dead, many many more Iraqis dead, and a half a trillion dollars spent, we remain mired in an occupation. The leading General cannot say when we will be able to leave. If asked, which he was not yesterday, I doubt that he could even say what his mission is except to act as a police force to help prop up the current regime in Iraq. Will the Democratic candidates for president actually end our involvement in Iraq if either of them is elected? I doubt it. They won't be able to do it. Meanwhile, don't be surprised if Junior Bush starts a war with Iran before he leaves the White House. You read it here.

PHOTO: Sea foam.

Jim

Hillary's Vote For The War

Alec Baldwin over at Huffington nails it:

Mrs. Clinton has been quoted as saying, "If the most important thing to any
of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a
mistake, then there are others to chose from."
Precisely.
I want Mrs.
Clinton to apologize. Until she does, I encourage Democrats to focus their
attention, and their money, on illuminating what is good about Barack Obama.

Yes, and her vote to authorize junior to go to war is not the only major sin. last Fall she voted to authorize war criminals Bush and Cheney to bomb Iran. After she gets done apologizing for the Iraq vote then she'll have to apologize for the Iran vote. But she won't.

Jim

How The Dems Screwed Us To Further Their Own Ambitions

Matt Taibbi nails it at Rolling Stone - a must read:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves

Taibbi makes the case that the Dems, who were put into power in Congress to stop the war in Iraq, have instead continured to support it and to support Bush's failed policies, while at the same time using anti-war rhetoric to further their candidates' ambitions. Enough of this smoke screen!

Jim

The Economy Is Broken And It Will Be Tough To Fix

Fall seems to have arrived all at once last week. The change of the seasons, marked by the colors of the leaves on the trees in Fairmount Park, exploded upon us finally, and all at once seemingly. I suppose that the unusually warm weather in October is responsible for this. In any event it was a joy to walk and take photographs around Thanksgiving. The rains today will no doubt knock off the majority of the colorful leaves that were so pretty just last week.

If the economy is so good then why are Americans pessimistic about it when they are asked? Paul Krugman, writing in today's New York Times, thinks that the good times enjoyed by the wealthy are simply not trickling down to the masses. Workers' salaries are not keeping up with inflation. This, combined with the worsening health care situation, is why we are not feeling good about the economy. Krugman thinks this will be tough to fix no matter who is elected the next president:

The next president won’t be able to deliver another era of good times unless
he or she manages to tackle the longer-term trends that underlie today’s
economic disappointment: a collapsing health care system and inexorably rising
inequality.

Of course, the Iraq debacle is also part of the problem. We spend enough on that war to fix health care, I believe. By the way, the recent reports that "The Surge" is working should not make us feel good about an illegal war that should never have been started in the first place. It ought to end now by the start of a full withdrawal of American troops. It's about oil, and we should address the oil problem responsibly and not by invading other countries.

Jim

Bush And Rumsfeld's Dirty War Fought With "Contractors"

Not that most Americans give a damn about what this country has become laterly, but do they even realize that there are about as many "civilian contractors" in Iraq as there are soldiers? More importantly, do they care that about 50,000 of these "contractors" are hired guns that answer to no one and have no rules of engagement, and can slaughter Iraqi civilians at will?

America: Great No More

Here is our current domestic policy on "illegal" immigrants, according to the New York Times:

Catch the few you can, and harass and frighten the rest. Treat the entire
group as a de facto class of criminals, and disrupt or shout down anyone or any
plan seen as abetting their evildoing.

Not only are we engaged in an illegal war and occupation abroad and torturing prisoners, but here at home we are demonizing millions of people who came here seeking the promise of a better life that has always been what America has stood for, that is, until recently.

What has happened to our country?

PHOTO: Abe Lincoln memorial statue...what would he think about what we have become?

Jim

We "Good Americans"

When indeed, will we cease being "Good Americans," and demand that this
country return to the standards of decency that we have always claimed to
represent as a nation?

- Jim Kelly, Hard To Port Blog, October 4, 2007

Our humanity has been compromised by those who use Gestapo tactics in our
war. The longer we stand idly by while they do so, the more we resemble those
“good Germans” who professed ignorance of their own Gestapo. It’s up to us to
wake up our somnambulant Congress to challenge administration
policy every day. Let the war’s last supporters filibuster all night if they
want to. There is nothing left to lose except whatever remains of our country’s
good name.

- Frank Rich, The New York Times, October 14, 2007

Police State; War State?

I heard several startling statements on the Sunday morning political talk shows yesterday. The one that sticks with me the most has do do with US prisons. The population of the United States is 3% of the world's population. However, we have 25% of the world's prisoners in our jails! What this says about our society and our values is troubling, to say the least. The overwhelming majority of our prisoners are members of minorities. Some of the reasons for this are the lack of job opportunities, combined with the ill effects of broken families on our young people, and our ridiculous drug policies that criminalize the use of "soft" drugs like marijuana. Where are we headed when two of our biggest expenditures are for our wars and our prisons, to the tune of a quarter of a trillion dollars a year?

Jim

Democrats: The Iraq Occupation Will Continue

I share Marc's grave disappointment in the Democratic Party's leading presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards,) who will not pledge to end our occupation of Iraq. This is a national disgrace and a failure of leadership. It also raises the possibility of a third party anti-war candidate garnering substantial support, as Eugene McCarthy did in 1967 when a similar domestic political situation existed in regard to the Vietnam War. In that year, the leading Democratic Party candidate, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, would not distance himself from Lyndon Johnson''s war policies. Richard Nixon was elected president pledging to end the war. It finally ended in defeat for the United States, but not until Nixon's second term. Is history set to repeat itself?

PHOTO: The "Co-ops" in the Fire Island Pines, an example of the poor planning in that community. Beachfront development has taken place seemingly with no regard to preserving the dunes, the only protection that barrier islands have from storms.

Jim

What Do I Think Of The "MoveOn.org" Ad Controversey?

September 21, 2007

Dear James Kelly,

Thank you so much for your contribution of $25.00 to MoveOn.org Political Action. Your contribution will help us make a big difference in this campaign.MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by hundreds of thousands of our members - we don't take big checks from corporations. The average contribution is around $50 and we don't take any contributions larger than $5000. That is why your contribution is even more special. Thank you so much.--Eli Pariser Executive Director MoveOn.org Political ActionContributions are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.PAID FOR BY MoveOn.org Political Action

History? What History?

December 25th, 1979 - The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Hmmm, I can't seem to remember how long that lasted. Oh yes, about 9 years. How did that go by the way?

Well, it largely contributed to the collapse (not entirely) of the Soviet Union.

See, here's the thing; If we all had a good education the voting populus would have gone back to our local library or even Google and cracked open some reading. We have plenty of history behind attempts at nation building and attempts at controlling the Middle East.

Fact is, Democracy has never been successfully delivered at the end of a weapon. And don't give me any crap about Nazi Germany being flipped to a democracy from a dictatorship. Our troops are still there and they had democracy before Adolph ever got there.

The Middle East always has been and will continue to be a powder keg. It is the corner stone of many cultures, relegions and actions that have influenced most of humanity. Throw in the effect of a finite and costly resource like oil and well, you have a powder keg and oil. Or to put it another way the Middle East will continue to be a volatile place for an extended period of time.

But let us forget for one minute about the region's many wars and extremely long tumultuous history and just consider very recent history. Well, if the Soviet's hadn't fiddled with Afghanistan for 9 years who is to say what it would have looked like? Maybe it wouldn't have been the fertile breeding ground for Al Qaeda that it seems to have become courtesy of the Taliban. The problem with arming your friends (IE The Mujahadeen) is that they may not be your friends forever (IE the Taliban and Al Qaeda). See some similarities with Iraq?

Let me throw out one idea. This war and the desired effects are intentional. Most people that look at the history of the region can see that any attempt at democratic nation building is out of the question. The region just doesn' have a track record that mirrors democratic politics.

But Iraq does have over 112 billion barrels just below the surface and most likely more than 100 billion that haven't been discovered yet. How do we keep the price high of a finite resource? Well, I don't need to be a history or economics major to know that if you quash competition for a finite resource, it is likely that a sole provider (think OPEC) will have the cash until THEY see fit to pull the crude out of the ground.

Think, ask questions and go look at the history of Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't make any snap judgements about what's happening in the Middle East. There are no fast answers and as we can see from our current quagmire, no easy one's.

Marc

PS The tank above is a Russian tank in Afghanistan. It is rusting away. Prophetic, although I wish our soldiers weren't there at all. Brave men and women are too few and far between.

PSS We still need to catch Bin Laden. I'm not sure why everyone isn't focused on that just a bit more??

Dowd On Greenspan: The War Over Oil

What a pleasure to be able to read Maureen Dowd once again, Here she is taking apart the old Republican windbag Alan Greenspan in the Times:

Even though he rubber-stamped W.’s tax cuts, Alan Greenspan is now
upbraiding the president and vice president for profligate spending and putting
politics ahead of sound economics.
He also says in his new memoir that “the
Iraq war is largely about oil,” telling Bob Woodward that he had privately told
W. and Cheney that ousting Saddam was “essential” to keeping world oil supplies
safe. Irrational exuberance, indeed.

Yes, and we've destroyed a country and lost over 5,000 young Americans thanks, in part, to Greenspan's "advice" to war criminals Bush and Cheney.

Jim

Nader On The Iraq War

From Raw Story:

"It's making the oil companies richer. It's making the corporations more profiteering. It's making our domination of the Middle East more likely to boomerang against our national security, isn't it?"

Yes, and even that dried up old Republican hack Greenspan admits that Bush invaded Iraq over oil. Yet the war continues.

Jim

Iraq: Where We're Headed

The New York Times sums up the situation well:

After all, it seems the burden of ending the war will fall to the next
president. Mr. Bush was clear last night — as he was when he addressed the
nation in January, September of last year, the December before that and in April
2004 — that his only real plan is to confuse enough Americans and cow enough
members of Congress to let him muddle along and saddle his successor with this
war that should never have been started.

The occupation will continue open ended, Americans will continue to die in Iraq, and America's reputation will sink lower still. This is what "The Decider" is planning to do until he leaves office. It does not appear as though he can be stopped. Could the German people stop Hitler?

Jim

Andrew Sullivan: We're Building A US Middle Eastern Empire

Barring a sudden revolt by the Congressional Republicans, we are now at war
with still too few troops and constructing an explicit, Middle Eastern empire
for as far as the eye can see.

Hum. When a prominent conservative comes to this conclusion I think we're in deep trouble. He's right, of course, and the Democratic front runner HC has already stated that we'll be in Iraq for a long, long time. Iran is next. Can Syria be far behind?

Jim

Iraq: The "Strategic Interests" Argument

General Petraeus ("Betray-Us" to some) has testified before Congress. He's squarely on board with the Bush plan to prolong the Iraq war indefinitely and hand it off to the next administration. It is already apparent that he and Bush will get their way, since the Democrats in Congress have neither the will or the votes to stop them. U.S. soldiers will continue to be caught in the middle of sectarian violence in Iraq, a civil war-like situation, only worse, with terrorists thrown in for good measure. The Baker-Hamilton commission's recommendations will continue to be ignored. Bush wins, America loses.

Part of the defense of this "stay the course" policy coming from so-called "thinking" individuals is that America has "strategic interests" in the region. But, what are our strategic interests in Iraq and the Middle East, other that oil, that is? We're told that "stability in the region," counterbalancing Iran, etc. are the reasons why we have to maintain a presence. We've heard this argument before albeit couched in slightly different terms. During the Vietnam War we were told that America had strategic interests in that region, the Far East. If we left, or were defeated, we were told, the "dominoes" would start to fall and Communism would spread throughout the entire region. Look at history and see how that lie turned out.

The point is, Bush-Cheney types, and those "thinkers" who make this "strategic interests" argument have not learned one simple fact about other peoples and other nations: they want to control their own destinies. And, they will resist us with every drop of blood in their veins if we continue to try to interfere in their affairs and try to control the outcome of their internal struggles. This is the lesson of Vietnam that Bush is ignoring to the continuing peril of our troops and the reputation of our country. We are occupiers in Iraq and as long as our occupation continues the inevitable self-determination that will take place in Iraq and in the region is simply delayed, with the cost being American "blood and treasure." This is why we must withdraw from Iraq and let Iraqis settle their own destiny, as we were forced to withdraw from Vietnam. Why must we have to re-learn this lesson yet again?

PHOTO: An obelisk in downtown Buenos Aires

Jim

UK Press: Will Bush Bomb Iran?

Here is a photo of downtown Ocean Beach, one of Fire Island's largest communities. OB is an incorporated town with it's own mayor and police force, and it has lots of town rules covering just about everything you can think of. For example, men must wear shirts when walking downtown. We usually walk down to OB which takes us about an hour and twenty minutes. There are a number of nice restaurants in the town. If we have dinner, we usually take the water taxi (a speedboat) back to Cherry Grove afterward.

There are frightening articles currently appearing in a couple of UK newspapers that lay out scenarios for a US attack on Iran. The Sunday Telegraph goes into great detail here.

Excerpt:

On Tuesday, President Bush dramatically stepped up his war of words with
the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom the US government accuses of
overseeing a covert programme to develop nuclear weapons. In a speech to war
veterans, Mr Bush said: "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to
nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and
violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."
He went on to condemn
Iranian meddling in Iraq, where America increasingly blames the deaths of its
soldiers on Iranian bombs and missiles. Mr Bush made clear that he had
authorised military commanders to confront "Iran's murderous
activities".
This was widely taken to mean that he is set on a confrontation
with Iran that will culminate in a bombing campaign to destroy Iranian nuclear
facilities, just as Israel bombed Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981.

The worldwide economic fallout from a Bush attack on Iran could be devastating. Bush could order the use of tactical nuclear weapons to knock out hardened nuclear facilities in Iran. This would further inflame Muslim hatred against America. The Iraq war could widen and engulf the entire Middle East. It's almost like a doomsday scenario. Diplomacy is still the best hope for controlling Iran's nuclear program. It worked with North Korea. Let's hope "Dubbya" doesn't pull the trigger this time and hit Iran.

Jim

Something's Coming

Here are a couple of photos of the center of Point 'O Woods. Bicycles are popular as a means of transport, as can be seen by the number parked outside the tennis courts. In the center of the hamlet there is a store, but your dollars are no good there. All purchases are put on personal accounts, for homeowners only.

The "chatter" on the networks this morning is loud about the war in Iraq, the Iran problem, and the increasing probability of another terrorist attack. Some analysts are suggesting that Bush will soon attack military bases in Iran, and, after Iran retaliates, Bush will then use this as an excuse to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. There is also a lot of talk about the probability of another 9-11 type terrorist attack happening soon. Is this why Karl Rove is so confident that Bush's approval ratings will be much higher a year from now? The American people usually rally behind military action taken against our "adversaries," at least at first, before it sinks in that there are long term problems created by such actions. It does look increasingly likely that something serious will happen between now and the election next year that will serve to rally support for Bush and the Republicans. You can just see it coming. The Democrats are too weak and fragmented to stop it. All we can do it sit by and watch whatever it is develop and hope it's not yet another 9-11 or an Iraq style military misadventure.

Jim

The Situation In Iraq Continues To Worsen

From Reuters:

After years in which Sunni Arab insurgents were their main enemies, U.S.
forces now say nearly three quarters of attacks on them come from the country's
newly empowered Shi'ite majority...."We demand the Iraqi government and
parliament stop the Americans interfering in Shula," local tribal elder Sabeeh
al-Sharji said. "As you can see, civilians sleep on the roofs. These random
attacks terrify women and children."

This is the latest news from Baghdad after US forces kill 18 in a raid. The side we're backing in the Iraqi civil war, the "democratically elected" Shi'ites, have turned on us. Meanwhile at home Republican Senator Warner says it's time to start bringing the troops home, the Joint Chiefs are set to insist upon a troop drawdown, and a grim major intelligence report is issued on Iraq.

The wheels have really come off this thing, George.

Jim