John McCain will, of course attack Senator Obama’s strengths. If the attack gets traction, what does Obama have left to sway the undecided?
To respond, Obama MUST attack what McCain is marketing as his unique strength… that he would be a uniquely strong leader who can keep America safe.
Yet it’s clear to all but the most radical of the flag-wavers who are pathologically incapable of critiquing ANY president regardless of their abuses or crimes, that by supporting the war against Iraq, a nation that posed no threat to the US, McCain has proven he does not just lack the judgment to be Commander-in-Chief, he is, in fact, DANGEROUS to the security of the nation.
Here are some simple truths that it would be refreshing for a US politician to speak...
The first is that if a war is unnecessary for our nation’s security, then ALL the blood, sweat, tears, and treasure, were pissed away in vain. Second: not the bravery of our troops, not the flag waving, nor any brilliant strategy to win such a pointless war can change that painful fact that it was all for nothing.
What kind of person would support such an unncessary war? It’s been said that if all a person has is a hammer, all the problems look like a nail. McCain’s fatal flaw is more concerned about demonstrating US power that national REAL security actually become a secondary consideration.
By his mindless support for the Iraq war which distracted from the war against Al Quida and placed the Afghanistan campaign at risk, McCain proved that he is easily distracted from the REAL security needs of the US.
Obama has to make sure the US public is not blinded by the flag-waving on the Right. He has to speak out for sanity... that in perilous times or not, the US can NEVER afford a president who will make the world more perilous. Bush proved it.
ulTRAX
8-27-08
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Iraq: So They Will Not Die In Vain part 2
Part One of this series can be found here.
We can’t underestimate the sacrifices that those in the military are willing to make nor those sacrifices already made should be honored this Memorial Day.
Yet as citizens we also have a responsibility to insure we do NOT call on the military to make those sacrifices in vain. That SHOULD be uncontroversial. Sadly, in America it’s not.
There is a basic truth here that many deny or remain oblivious to. By definition an unnecessary war is one that’s not vital for our national security or survival. Even if we prevail in such an unnecessary war, then all the sacrifices of blood and treasure were for nothing since our national security or survival were not served. There is NO way around this incontrovertible fact.
I may be a Progressive but I’m not anti-military. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Gulf War… though I’ve later rethought that support. I opposed Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Libya, and Iraq.
The mantra “support the troops” has become as meaningless as “pro-life”. It is meaningless phrase because it has become a slogan that both sides wear on their sleeves. They seem to value the terms as self-descriptions to proclaim their moral superiority… and as shields against their critics. Yet I all too often see a pattern. Most, especially on the pro-war side, don’t feel any responsibility to actually flesh out what their precious slogan means. It’s become as meaningless as the term “pro-life” when someone also supports the death penalty or an economic system where exploitation of others is a central feature.
Similarly those who support unnecessary wars avoid the obvious contradiction in their position: how can one REALLY support the troops when they didn’t oppose an unnecessary war at the start and now wish the troops to remain longer in a brutal meat grinder? Knowing all those sacrifices the troops are willing to make for the nation, how can ANY patriot ask, if not demand, they make such sacrifices in vain?
The military may have to follow orders whether they like it or not. When civilians do the same or allow themselves to be manipulated by cynical and dishonest politicians, it destroys one of the checks and balances of our system that can keep us out of unnecessary or illegal wars.
It SHOULD be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used to support some special interests as we did when we repeatedly sent in the military to protect the interests of United Fruit, the oil companies, and the like. It SHOULD also be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used in unnecessary if not illegal wars begun cynical politicians who wrap themselves in the flag.
By denying these simple realities of US politics, the faux patriots betray their real agenda. They aren’t concerned about the military. They just claim to be. They’ll believe ANY noble-sounding pretense if it’s wrapped in God and Country.
The faux patriots have genuinely deluded themselves they have a monopoly on something called patriotism. Their pathological patriotism does not require them to shed all preconceptions and rethink what’s really best for this nation. Their patriotism doesn’t require them to question whether our military is being asked to sacrifice for some pointless cause or politician’s glory. To them patriotism is summed up in that old slogan: America right or wrong. This isn’t patriotism, it is a religious creed that requires nothing more than mindless loyalty and flag-waving. Even if the most cynical, perhaps criminal, president wraps themselves in the flag… some 20-25% of the population can be counted on for a mindless, Pavlovian, flag-waving response.
So it’s clear in my mind those PROTESTING the needless Iraq War and the Bush Junta’s criminal agenda are the REAL patriots compared to the intellectually and morally bankrupt faux patriots.
All the flag waving of these pathological patriots can’t conceal their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Shame!
Revised: 2-18-10
ulTRAX
We can’t underestimate the sacrifices that those in the military are willing to make nor those sacrifices already made should be honored this Memorial Day.
Yet as citizens we also have a responsibility to insure we do NOT call on the military to make those sacrifices in vain. That SHOULD be uncontroversial. Sadly, in America it’s not.
There is a basic truth here that many deny or remain oblivious to. By definition an unnecessary war is one that’s not vital for our national security or survival. Even if we prevail in such an unnecessary war, then all the sacrifices of blood and treasure were for nothing since our national security or survival were not served. There is NO way around this incontrovertible fact.
I may be a Progressive but I’m not anti-military. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Gulf War… though I’ve later rethought that support. I opposed Vietnam, Panama, Granada, Libya, and Iraq.
The mantra “support the troops” has become as meaningless as “pro-life”. It is meaningless phrase because it has become a slogan that both sides wear on their sleeves. They seem to value the terms as self-descriptions to proclaim their moral superiority… and as shields against their critics. Yet I all too often see a pattern. Most, especially on the pro-war side, don’t feel any responsibility to actually flesh out what their precious slogan means. It’s become as meaningless as the term “pro-life” when someone also supports the death penalty or an economic system where exploitation of others is a central feature.
Similarly those who support unnecessary wars avoid the obvious contradiction in their position: how can one REALLY support the troops when they didn’t oppose an unnecessary war at the start and now wish the troops to remain longer in a brutal meat grinder? Knowing all those sacrifices the troops are willing to make for the nation, how can ANY patriot ask, if not demand, they make such sacrifices in vain?
The military may have to follow orders whether they like it or not. When civilians do the same or allow themselves to be manipulated by cynical and dishonest politicians, it destroys one of the checks and balances of our system that can keep us out of unnecessary or illegal wars.
It SHOULD be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used to support some special interests as we did when we repeatedly sent in the military to protect the interests of United Fruit, the oil companies, and the like. It SHOULD also be axiomatic that no one would want to see our military used in unnecessary if not illegal wars begun cynical politicians who wrap themselves in the flag.
By denying these simple realities of US politics, the faux patriots betray their real agenda. They aren’t concerned about the military. They just claim to be. They’ll believe ANY noble-sounding pretense if it’s wrapped in God and Country.
The faux patriots have genuinely deluded themselves they have a monopoly on something called patriotism. Their pathological patriotism does not require them to shed all preconceptions and rethink what’s really best for this nation. Their patriotism doesn’t require them to question whether our military is being asked to sacrifice for some pointless cause or politician’s glory. To them patriotism is summed up in that old slogan: America right or wrong. This isn’t patriotism, it is a religious creed that requires nothing more than mindless loyalty and flag-waving. Even if the most cynical, perhaps criminal, president wraps themselves in the flag… some 20-25% of the population can be counted on for a mindless, Pavlovian, flag-waving response.
So it’s clear in my mind those PROTESTING the needless Iraq War and the Bush Junta’s criminal agenda are the REAL patriots compared to the intellectually and morally bankrupt faux patriots.
All the flag waving of these pathological patriots can’t conceal their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Shame!
Revised: 2-18-10
ulTRAX
Thoughts On The 2ed Amendment
As a gun owner for nearly 30 years I listened with great interest some of the discussion of the Second Amendment during the Supreme Court hearings on March 18th.
I'm certainly not a legal or Constitutional Scholar but I have debated the Second Amendment many times in various political forums. Here are some weaknesses I’ve found in the conservative arguments which seem to be repeated by some of the Conservative members of the USCS.
POINT 1: The term "The People" sounds all-inclusive. But it's clear from the Preamble of the Constitution that "The People" were a small section of the population. Why? Read it:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Surely the “Blessings of Liberty” were only intended for a subset of the population. It was clearly NOT meant for slaves. The politics of the Constitutional Convention, in fact, required the continuation of slavery. Sadly, we’re left with no other conclusion then the Bill of Rights was NEVER originally intended to cover the entire population. In the case of the Second Amendment, states would be free to ban some from owning guns.
POINT 2: If the original intent of the term “The People” were all inclusive, do those who contend the Second represents an unqualified individual right claim the Second Amendment protected the rights of slaves to own guns? Surely the slave states would NEVER permit this any more than they would permit slaves freedom of the press or freedom from unlawful search and seizure. To think otherwise is laughable.
POINT 3: If the Framers intended the Second Amendment to be an unqualified individual right to bare arms, they could easily have used unambiguous language such as “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right to bare arms” leaving no question as to their intent. Such language was not foreign to them: it was used in the First Amendment.
The Framers choose not to use such language but instead prefaced the amendment with mention of the militia. The prominent mention of the militia is there for a reason. It explains why the right of the “people” (white males) to bare arms must be protected. While some on the Right ignore what appears to be an obvious qualifier, and make torturous arguments about the Framers’ use of a colon vs. a semicolon to “prove” the Second protects an unqualified right to bare arms, imagine some simple changes in the language to make it more comprehensible to modern readers:
Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
POINT 4: The Militia Act of 1792 was written and ratified within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The original intent of the Second Amendment would have been abundantly clear in the minds of Congress. It states:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
POINT 5: Since the original intent of the Constitution was to grant government limited powers with all remaining powers and rights remaining with the People or the states, the real right to bare arms seems to be in that forgotten, if not utterly ignored, Ninth Amendment. Madison’s greatest fear about having a formal Bill of Rights was that if some rights were enumerated, the unenumerated rights would soon be at risk. Madison was correct. The thought of the People… even in the all inclusive sense, retaining all rights is much too threatening to Conservatives and even most Liberals.
CONCLUSION: The US Constitution is both anti-democratic and essentially reform-proof. Through our history we have imbued it with an almost mystical quality. This is the core of our secular religion. The Constitution also stands in the way of what the modern political parties want to achieve. So since it’s almost impossible to amend the Constitution in any meaningful way, American politics demands we work around around it... all the time paying lip service to “original intent” and the infinite wisdom of the Framers. The modern bastardization of the Second Amendment by the likes of the NRA and a cynical Right wing looking for wedge issues into an unqualified individual right instead of a collective right, and the consistent ignoring of the Ninth by both parties can best be explained by this predictable political dynamic.
(updated 3-21-08)
ulTRAX
I'm certainly not a legal or Constitutional Scholar but I have debated the Second Amendment many times in various political forums. Here are some weaknesses I’ve found in the conservative arguments which seem to be repeated by some of the Conservative members of the USCS.
POINT 1: The term "The People" sounds all-inclusive. But it's clear from the Preamble of the Constitution that "The People" were a small section of the population. Why? Read it:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Surely the “Blessings of Liberty” were only intended for a subset of the population. It was clearly NOT meant for slaves. The politics of the Constitutional Convention, in fact, required the continuation of slavery. Sadly, we’re left with no other conclusion then the Bill of Rights was NEVER originally intended to cover the entire population. In the case of the Second Amendment, states would be free to ban some from owning guns.
POINT 2: If the original intent of the term “The People” were all inclusive, do those who contend the Second represents an unqualified individual right claim the Second Amendment protected the rights of slaves to own guns? Surely the slave states would NEVER permit this any more than they would permit slaves freedom of the press or freedom from unlawful search and seizure. To think otherwise is laughable.
POINT 3: If the Framers intended the Second Amendment to be an unqualified individual right to bare arms, they could easily have used unambiguous language such as “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right to bare arms” leaving no question as to their intent. Such language was not foreign to them: it was used in the First Amendment.
The Framers choose not to use such language but instead prefaced the amendment with mention of the militia. The prominent mention of the militia is there for a reason. It explains why the right of the “people” (white males) to bare arms must be protected. While some on the Right ignore what appears to be an obvious qualifier, and make torturous arguments about the Framers’ use of a colon vs. a semicolon to “prove” the Second protects an unqualified right to bare arms, imagine some simple changes in the language to make it more comprehensible to modern readers:
Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
POINT 4: The Militia Act of 1792 was written and ratified within a few years of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The original intent of the Second Amendment would have been abundantly clear in the minds of Congress. It states:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
POINT 5: Since the original intent of the Constitution was to grant government limited powers with all remaining powers and rights remaining with the People or the states, the real right to bare arms seems to be in that forgotten, if not utterly ignored, Ninth Amendment. Madison’s greatest fear about having a formal Bill of Rights was that if some rights were enumerated, the unenumerated rights would soon be at risk. Madison was correct. The thought of the People… even in the all inclusive sense, retaining all rights is much too threatening to Conservatives and even most Liberals.
CONCLUSION: The US Constitution is both anti-democratic and essentially reform-proof. Through our history we have imbued it with an almost mystical quality. This is the core of our secular religion. The Constitution also stands in the way of what the modern political parties want to achieve. So since it’s almost impossible to amend the Constitution in any meaningful way, American politics demands we work around around it... all the time paying lip service to “original intent” and the infinite wisdom of the Framers. The modern bastardization of the Second Amendment by the likes of the NRA and a cynical Right wing looking for wedge issues into an unqualified individual right instead of a collective right, and the consistent ignoring of the Ninth by both parties can best be explained by this predictable political dynamic.
(updated 3-21-08)
ulTRAX
Friday, March 23, 2007
Iraq: So They Will Not Have Died In Vain...
As with the Vietnam War, the supporters and apologists of Bush’s Iraq debacle have resurrected the tired old arguments that any “early withdrawal” would make a mockery of those in the military who have already sacrificed their lives. In their mind, the only way to honor those sacrifices is to sacrifice more lives and treasure to fulfill the mission. As put by a soldier who wrote an article posted at the conservative Townhall web site:
The above arguments might be seen as logical providing a war is just… where we were attacked first or our national security was truly in jeopardy. Yet I also don’t doubt that even in an unjust war rooted in greed, foolishness, ideological hubris or insanity… such volunteer soldiers such as the author of that Townhall piece may be True Believers. As such they may be predisposed towards a virulent form of patriotic nationalism and uncritical of their national leaders.
But as we all should have learned from WWII, a soldier’s choice to be blind to the obvious lies and delusions of their leaders is never noble and may, in fact, be criminal under international law. The author of this Townhall piece also demonstrates his ideological blinders when he fails to recognized the other possible ways the US could have encouraged democracy in the mid-east, should that ever have been a real goal, WITHOUT an illegal war.
One way was for the US to show the virtues of democracy by actually modeling democracy ourselves. Surely, it’s not lost on even the non-democratic world that in 2000 Bush was originally REJECTED by the People. There was no popular cry for his irresponsible tax cuts, stacking the federal judiciary with right-wing ideologies, or his Son Of Star Wars missile defense. Bush was imposed upon our nation by an anti-democratic institution called the Electoral College. That Bush refuses to call for the abolition of the EC alone calls into question his commitment to democracy and exposes Bush’s pretenses for his war. Even if we were a truly democratic nation, surely we could have worked with our friends in the region to institute democratic reforms rather than rush to an illegal war or aggression.
Bush’s claims to promote democracy in the mid-east as a way of reducing anti-American hostility can also be exposed as a red herring when we refuse to take more concrete steps to reduce the proven causes for such hostility. We could have forced a fair peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians but instead Bush pursued a petulant policy of humiliating the Palestinian people… first by refusing to deal with Arafat then refusing to recognize the elected Hamas government. Bush could have showed true leadership by entering into a Peace & Reconciliation process with all those we’ve wronged in the mid-east. But Bush preferred to portray us as complete victims, shielding the American People from the true cost of our 60-year policy of oil first. Surely those who have been the victims of our policies are not blind to those costs.
And so Bush’s War now begins its 5th year… and the virulent forms of what passes for patriotism on the Right live on. Faced with the reality of US soldiers losing their lives, the peace movement finds the “die in vain” argument difficult to respond to. One response offered by Cindy Sheehan is that the best way to insure that a soldier’s sacrifice was not in vain is to insure no others would died in that immoral war. It’s an interesting argument but I believe misses the mark.
What both sides seem to miss is this simple truth:if a war is unjust or illegal then even if that war is successful, then ALL the deaths and injuries of all the GIs, combatants, and civilians were in vain since the war was unnecessary to begin with.
There is but one way that those sacrifices of our soldiers will not have been in vain… and that is that Bush’s War finally forces us as a nation to deal with what got us into this needless war to begin with. At some point, We The People must confront and break free of the pathological patriotism that feeds such US imperialistic wars. We The People need to confront and break free of those cultural and institutional predilections that make us so susceptible to manipulation by intellectually and morally bankrupt leaders, and their subservient minions in Congress and the media.
Once We The People clean house, bring our own criminal leaders to justice, finally reform this nation’s dysfunctional political institutions, and make peace with those we’ve wronged, perhaps only THEN will those soldiers’ lives truly not have been lost in vain.
revised 3-29-07
5-28-08
ulTRAX
In order to secure the American people, democracy had to be spread to the region because democratic governments are far less prone to going to war and they are far less prone to internal strife and violence. The process couldn't help but be messy, but it was necessary. Obviously, I don't know how this experiment works out, but you do. If Iraq is a democratic nation now, or if Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, Kuwait, or one of the others has become democratic, then the war was worth it. However, if we pulled out because we lost too many soldiers and got out in an act of political expediency, then I did die in vain.
The above arguments might be seen as logical providing a war is just… where we were attacked first or our national security was truly in jeopardy. Yet I also don’t doubt that even in an unjust war rooted in greed, foolishness, ideological hubris or insanity… such volunteer soldiers such as the author of that Townhall piece may be True Believers. As such they may be predisposed towards a virulent form of patriotic nationalism and uncritical of their national leaders.
But as we all should have learned from WWII, a soldier’s choice to be blind to the obvious lies and delusions of their leaders is never noble and may, in fact, be criminal under international law. The author of this Townhall piece also demonstrates his ideological blinders when he fails to recognized the other possible ways the US could have encouraged democracy in the mid-east, should that ever have been a real goal, WITHOUT an illegal war.
One way was for the US to show the virtues of democracy by actually modeling democracy ourselves. Surely, it’s not lost on even the non-democratic world that in 2000 Bush was originally REJECTED by the People. There was no popular cry for his irresponsible tax cuts, stacking the federal judiciary with right-wing ideologies, or his Son Of Star Wars missile defense. Bush was imposed upon our nation by an anti-democratic institution called the Electoral College. That Bush refuses to call for the abolition of the EC alone calls into question his commitment to democracy and exposes Bush’s pretenses for his war. Even if we were a truly democratic nation, surely we could have worked with our friends in the region to institute democratic reforms rather than rush to an illegal war or aggression.
Bush’s claims to promote democracy in the mid-east as a way of reducing anti-American hostility can also be exposed as a red herring when we refuse to take more concrete steps to reduce the proven causes for such hostility. We could have forced a fair peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians but instead Bush pursued a petulant policy of humiliating the Palestinian people… first by refusing to deal with Arafat then refusing to recognize the elected Hamas government. Bush could have showed true leadership by entering into a Peace & Reconciliation process with all those we’ve wronged in the mid-east. But Bush preferred to portray us as complete victims, shielding the American People from the true cost of our 60-year policy of oil first. Surely those who have been the victims of our policies are not blind to those costs.
And so Bush’s War now begins its 5th year… and the virulent forms of what passes for patriotism on the Right live on. Faced with the reality of US soldiers losing their lives, the peace movement finds the “die in vain” argument difficult to respond to. One response offered by Cindy Sheehan is that the best way to insure that a soldier’s sacrifice was not in vain is to insure no others would died in that immoral war. It’s an interesting argument but I believe misses the mark.
What both sides seem to miss is this simple truth:if a war is unjust or illegal then even if that war is successful, then ALL the deaths and injuries of all the GIs, combatants, and civilians were in vain since the war was unnecessary to begin with.
There is but one way that those sacrifices of our soldiers will not have been in vain… and that is that Bush’s War finally forces us as a nation to deal with what got us into this needless war to begin with. At some point, We The People must confront and break free of the pathological patriotism that feeds such US imperialistic wars. We The People need to confront and break free of those cultural and institutional predilections that make us so susceptible to manipulation by intellectually and morally bankrupt leaders, and their subservient minions in Congress and the media.
Once We The People clean house, bring our own criminal leaders to justice, finally reform this nation’s dysfunctional political institutions, and make peace with those we’ve wronged, perhaps only THEN will those soldiers’ lives truly not have been lost in vain.
revised 3-29-07
5-28-08
ulTRAX
Monday, October 30, 2006
DAMN IT DEMS… RUN THIS AD!
Open letter to the DNC…
I have to be honest. I don’t have any respect for the Democratic Party. After all, you continually stand in the way of the electoral reforms like proportional representation thus depriving Progressive such as myself of any representation in Washington. And it's so easy to blame Katharine Harris and the USSC for giving us Bush in 2000 when the REAL problem was the Electoral College. Yet, Democrats refuse to even talk about abolishing this anti-democratic abomination.
Nonetheless, Bush and the GOP have been an unmitigated disaster for the US and the world. Right about now, as in ‘04, I’ll settle for the lesser of the evils.
So DNC, I know you’d like to THINK you’re headed for some victories next Tuesday. If you’re lucky you’ll take back the House and Senate. I'm not so sure.
THE PROBLEM: I’m sure you don’t underestimate Carl Rove’s ability to pull this election out of the fire. We can see his fingerprints with the constant on-message harping about national security and possible tax hikes. Then there’s his massive database of personal information he’ll use to micro-target voters. But, perhaps your biggest problem is that True Believers of the GOP can easily rationalize away all of Bush’s disasters and fiscal irresponsibility. I’ve debated such right-wingers for years and I understand the extent to which they have sabotaged their own intelligence to believe the Party line. These voters need to be shocked out of their complacency. You need an effective wedge issue… and soon.
Though the Right’s strategy to sabotage government with massive deficits and growing debt is now 25 years old the Democrats STILL seem incapable of launching an effective counterstrategy. Worst, Bush is even today telling cheering crowds that it’s the Democrats that would piss away their money. These lies are beyond Orwellian. Yet it’s not rocket science to deflate these lies. The Right’s propaganda machine has been predictable in its approach. They tell the faithful “it’s your money” and tax cuts are a free lunch essential for economic growth. They then downplay the deficit numbers THEY created.
Those who believe the Right’s big lies do so because they have never been educated in the following:
1: If We The People are in debt… then ALL tax cuts are paid for with borrowing.
2: The Right is stealing money from our children to buy votes today, allowing us to party today at our children’s expense. How god damn noble!
3: That tax cuts are essential for economic growth argument is laughable and without empirical data. The Right has misrepresented the so-called JFK tax cut, the economic boom of the 80’s was classic demand-side not supply side, and Clinton proved that there can be a boom after a tax hike.
That things have come to this point is because Democrats never did their job to educate the public. But it’s not too late to strike a blow in the next week.
What makes the Right’s Big Lies appealing is the average person really has no idea what budget numbers we’re taking about. Sadly, most can’t tell the difference between a million, a billion, and a trillion. It’s just too abstract.
THE SOLUTION? You need a quick wedge issue that will peel away or discourage some GOP voters, and serve some future education process. A new approach is needed, preferably one that kills two or three birds with one stone:
1: It’s essential to counteract the Right’s long-term strategy of “starving the beast” since the entire Democratic agenda depends on it.
2: It’s essential to educate GOP and wavering Democratic voters and shock them to the senses.
3: It’s essential to brand all GOP members of Congress/Senate as dangerously irresponsible to counteract the tendency to believe one’s own incumbent is not part of the problem in Washington.
Here’s what I propose…
The public MUST be educated on the amount of the debt Bush has run up. Make the abstract painfully concrete. What’s needed is some sense of scale. And that’s what this site does: www.crunchweb.net/87billion. Unfortunately, they stopped at the $315 Billion spent on Bush’s wars.
According to the Bureau of Public Debt Bush's debt from January 22, 2001 to October 27, 2006 is now $2837.816643835 BILLION. What does that represent?
If stacked atop over a football field (100’x300’) it would make a tower of cash 4,136’ Feet tall.
If stacked over a baseball diamond (90’x90’) it would make a tower of cash 15,321 Feet Tall
You get the "picture". Right?
For cost reasons I’d suggest one generic ad. To hit a key demographic I’d take these ads out during football games this weekend so not to give the Right much time to respond t that same group. The use of a football field for scale is one sports fans can easily relate to. You can begin showing a single dollar bill on the field, then show the income of the average worker or family. Pull back to show Bush’s FY01 through FY06 deficits piling up giving a running total of the height of the stack of cash. It’s essential to use ON-BUDGET deficit numbers since unified budget numbers are dishonest and will never equal the final Bush debt. In the end, the total Bush debt numbers will result in that tower growing to some 4136’ tall atop that football field… less if you use the sidelines and end zones. Depending on what you're willing to spend you can toss in some extras; the Goodyear blimp banking hard to get out of the way of the rising tower; glimpses of the crowd standing up to stare in disbelief. Keep pulling back to show the tower of cash’s full size in relation to whatever stadium you use.
For possible tag lines…
“Bush says only the Republicans can wisely watch over taxpayer money. The Debt the Republicans have run up tell a different story.”
Or…
“Tax cuts for the rich were never a free lunch. This is the bill the Bush Republicans are handing to our children.”
Or...
“The Bush Republicans are building a monument. But it’s a monument to fiscal irresponsibility we and our children just can’t afford.”
Or...
“The Bush Republicans have been so fiscally irresponsible we can no longer even fund our Defense Department without loans from Red (sic) China.”
See the possibilities? Of course it would help Democratic credibility immensely if you stopped playing your own on- / off-budget games concealing hundreds of billions in loans from the federal trust funds as Kerry did in '04 in his so-called “balanced budget plan”. If you are ever to become the Party of TRUE fiscal responsibility you have to tell it straight... not just to educate the public but to forever inoculate them against the Right’s propaganda.
THE MATH: As for the math I used which I urge you to double check:
I’ve recalculated Crunchweb’s numbers and according to my measurements a US dollar bill is 6.125" x 2.625" x .0047"
That means...
$1.00 bill = .0755671875 cubic inches.
Since a cubic foot is 1,728 cubic inches
$22,867 in $1.00 bills can theoretically fit into a cubic foot.
$1 Billion... 1,000,000,000 / 22,867 = 43,731 cubic feet of $1.00 tightly packed bills
According to the Bureau of Public Debt Bush's debt from January 22, 2001 to October 27, 2006 is now $2837.816643835 BILLION.
That amounts to 124,100,559 CUBIC FEET of tightly packed $1.00 bills. This can be divided in any way… for a football field… divide 124,100,559 by 100 then 300. The result will be the height of the cash.
(revised 11-01-06)
ulTRAX
I have to be honest. I don’t have any respect for the Democratic Party. After all, you continually stand in the way of the electoral reforms like proportional representation thus depriving Progressive such as myself of any representation in Washington. And it's so easy to blame Katharine Harris and the USSC for giving us Bush in 2000 when the REAL problem was the Electoral College. Yet, Democrats refuse to even talk about abolishing this anti-democratic abomination.
Nonetheless, Bush and the GOP have been an unmitigated disaster for the US and the world. Right about now, as in ‘04, I’ll settle for the lesser of the evils.
So DNC, I know you’d like to THINK you’re headed for some victories next Tuesday. If you’re lucky you’ll take back the House and Senate. I'm not so sure.
THE PROBLEM: I’m sure you don’t underestimate Carl Rove’s ability to pull this election out of the fire. We can see his fingerprints with the constant on-message harping about national security and possible tax hikes. Then there’s his massive database of personal information he’ll use to micro-target voters. But, perhaps your biggest problem is that True Believers of the GOP can easily rationalize away all of Bush’s disasters and fiscal irresponsibility. I’ve debated such right-wingers for years and I understand the extent to which they have sabotaged their own intelligence to believe the Party line. These voters need to be shocked out of their complacency. You need an effective wedge issue… and soon.
Though the Right’s strategy to sabotage government with massive deficits and growing debt is now 25 years old the Democrats STILL seem incapable of launching an effective counterstrategy. Worst, Bush is even today telling cheering crowds that it’s the Democrats that would piss away their money. These lies are beyond Orwellian. Yet it’s not rocket science to deflate these lies. The Right’s propaganda machine has been predictable in its approach. They tell the faithful “it’s your money” and tax cuts are a free lunch essential for economic growth. They then downplay the deficit numbers THEY created.
Those who believe the Right’s big lies do so because they have never been educated in the following:
1: If We The People are in debt… then ALL tax cuts are paid for with borrowing.
2: The Right is stealing money from our children to buy votes today, allowing us to party today at our children’s expense. How god damn noble!
3: That tax cuts are essential for economic growth argument is laughable and without empirical data. The Right has misrepresented the so-called JFK tax cut, the economic boom of the 80’s was classic demand-side not supply side, and Clinton proved that there can be a boom after a tax hike.
That things have come to this point is because Democrats never did their job to educate the public. But it’s not too late to strike a blow in the next week.
What makes the Right’s Big Lies appealing is the average person really has no idea what budget numbers we’re taking about. Sadly, most can’t tell the difference between a million, a billion, and a trillion. It’s just too abstract.
THE SOLUTION? You need a quick wedge issue that will peel away or discourage some GOP voters, and serve some future education process. A new approach is needed, preferably one that kills two or three birds with one stone:
1: It’s essential to counteract the Right’s long-term strategy of “starving the beast” since the entire Democratic agenda depends on it.
2: It’s essential to educate GOP and wavering Democratic voters and shock them to the senses.
3: It’s essential to brand all GOP members of Congress/Senate as dangerously irresponsible to counteract the tendency to believe one’s own incumbent is not part of the problem in Washington.
Here’s what I propose…
The public MUST be educated on the amount of the debt Bush has run up. Make the abstract painfully concrete. What’s needed is some sense of scale. And that’s what this site does: www.crunchweb.net/87billion. Unfortunately, they stopped at the $315 Billion spent on Bush’s wars.
According to the Bureau of Public Debt Bush's debt from January 22, 2001 to October 27, 2006 is now $2837.816643835 BILLION. What does that represent?
If stacked atop over a football field (100’x300’) it would make a tower of cash 4,136’ Feet tall.
If stacked over a baseball diamond (90’x90’) it would make a tower of cash 15,321 Feet Tall
You get the "picture". Right?
For cost reasons I’d suggest one generic ad. To hit a key demographic I’d take these ads out during football games this weekend so not to give the Right much time to respond t that same group. The use of a football field for scale is one sports fans can easily relate to. You can begin showing a single dollar bill on the field, then show the income of the average worker or family. Pull back to show Bush’s FY01 through FY06 deficits piling up giving a running total of the height of the stack of cash. It’s essential to use ON-BUDGET deficit numbers since unified budget numbers are dishonest and will never equal the final Bush debt. In the end, the total Bush debt numbers will result in that tower growing to some 4136’ tall atop that football field… less if you use the sidelines and end zones. Depending on what you're willing to spend you can toss in some extras; the Goodyear blimp banking hard to get out of the way of the rising tower; glimpses of the crowd standing up to stare in disbelief. Keep pulling back to show the tower of cash’s full size in relation to whatever stadium you use.
For possible tag lines…
“Bush says only the Republicans can wisely watch over taxpayer money. The Debt the Republicans have run up tell a different story.”
Or…
“Tax cuts for the rich were never a free lunch. This is the bill the Bush Republicans are handing to our children.”
Or...
“The Bush Republicans are building a monument. But it’s a monument to fiscal irresponsibility we and our children just can’t afford.”
Or...
“The Bush Republicans have been so fiscally irresponsible we can no longer even fund our Defense Department without loans from Red (sic) China.”
See the possibilities? Of course it would help Democratic credibility immensely if you stopped playing your own on- / off-budget games concealing hundreds of billions in loans from the federal trust funds as Kerry did in '04 in his so-called “balanced budget plan”. If you are ever to become the Party of TRUE fiscal responsibility you have to tell it straight... not just to educate the public but to forever inoculate them against the Right’s propaganda.
THE MATH: As for the math I used which I urge you to double check:
I’ve recalculated Crunchweb’s numbers and according to my measurements a US dollar bill is 6.125" x 2.625" x .0047"
That means...
$1.00 bill = .0755671875 cubic inches.
Since a cubic foot is 1,728 cubic inches
$22,867 in $1.00 bills can theoretically fit into a cubic foot.
$1 Billion... 1,000,000,000 / 22,867 = 43,731 cubic feet of $1.00 tightly packed bills
According to the Bureau of Public Debt Bush's debt from January 22, 2001 to October 27, 2006 is now $2837.816643835 BILLION.
That amounts to 124,100,559 CUBIC FEET of tightly packed $1.00 bills. This can be divided in any way… for a football field… divide 124,100,559 by 100 then 300. The result will be the height of the cash.
(revised 11-01-06)
ulTRAX
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)