The incompetence of the government is not what we want. But yet it is exactly what we continue to focus on. And then we begin to wonder why it is that we receive more of the same (incompetent government). Well, the reason is quite obvious when you really take the time to think about it just for a few minutes. The reason is—What we focus on the most is what shows up, grows, and expands in our life. This means that by focusing on all that is “wrong” with the current Administration, I’m seeing more of the same (wrong). And that is my responsibility, nobody else’s.
I’ve been contributing to the continuation of all that is wrong by my entries in this blog. Do we really need yet another blog to sit and bitch about this and that, over and over, thinking that what is being written is actually going to make a difference? Of course, that is a rhetorical question. We do not need more “bitch blogs”. What we need is the truth. What we need is to understand. What we need is to focus on what we want, and our actions will automatically follow in an appropriate fashion. So, from now on, I’m going to attempt to have all my entries focus on what I want, and what I feel is “just right.” Readers get a different sense of the situation, maybe even reading more and contributing to the ensuing conversation instead of getting angry or upset at the government (or at me if they support the current administration). No minds are changed that way. Not one. At least not changed in the way that contributes to the well being of our society, but would only contribute to the discourse of our society and strengthen that divide that we have all allowed this administration to do so well because of where our focus has been.
I am awakening. Americans are awakening. Awakening to a new sense that we can change the world in this flawed but well-planned republic in which we live. And peoples of other nations and cultures and backgrounds will find the encouragement to focus on what they want, and make the positive changes they desire in their own countries and communities. I mean, really, how well does the arguing and screaming and bitching contribute to another’s desire for democracy in their own country which is still under some sort of totalitarian rule? I think, another rhetorical question that was…
So let’s work on that change together. What do you want to see happen in your community, your country, your state? Taking out all the negativity and the don’t want…simply stating what you want… Share, and together we can strengthen, not weaken, this Republic and this planet. I look forward to your input. Negativity is a don’t want. So I will not see any of that. Your positive input is so greatly appreciated in advance.
I hope you have the day that you woke up and wanted to have!
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Video Shows Bush Was Warned Before Katrina
All I can say is, yes, my critisism was founded.
Video Shows Bush Was Warned Before Katrina
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP)—In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.
Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."
The footage—along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press—show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.
Linked by secure video, Bush's confidence on Aug. 28 starkly contrasts with the dire warnings his disaster chief and a cacophony of federal, state and local officials provided during the four days before the storm.
A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the levees and then-Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown told the president and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help evacuees at the Superdome.
"I'm concerned about ... their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe," Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall.
Some of the footage and transcripts from briefings Aug. 25-31 conflicts with the defenses that federal, state and local officials have made in trying to deflect blame and minimize the political fallout from the failed Katrina response:
—Homeland Security officials have said the "fog of war" blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.
"I don't buy the `fog of war' defense," Brown told the AP in an interview Wednesday. "It was a fog of bureaucracy."
—Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility—and Bush was worried too.
White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Brown discussed fears of a levee breach the day the storm hit.
"I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford and then again on Air Force One," Brown said. "He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches."
—Louisiana officials angrily blamed the federal government for not being prepared but the transcripts shows they were still praising FEMA as the storm roared toward the Gulf Coast and even two days afterward. "I think a lot of the planning FEMA has done with us the past year has really paid off," Col. Jeff Smith, Louisiana's emergency preparedness deputy director, said during the Aug. 28 briefing.
It wasn't long before Smith and other state officials sounded overwhelmed.
"We appreciate everything that you all are doing for us, and all I would ask is that you realize that what's going on and the sense of urgency needs to be ratcheted up," Smith said Aug. 30.
Mississippi begged for more attention in that same briefing.
"We know that there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana that need to be rescued, but we would just ask you, we desperately need to get our share of assets because we'll have people dying—not because of water coming up, but because we can't get them medical treatment in our affected counties," said a Mississippi state official whose name was not mentioned on the tape.
Video footage of the Aug. 28 briefing, the final one before Katrina struck, showed an intense Brown voicing concerns from the government's disaster operation center and imploring colleagues to do whatever was necessary to help victims.
"We're going to need everything that we can possibly muster, not only in this state and in the region, but the nation, to respond to this event," Brown warned. He called the storm "a bad one, a big one" and implored federal agencies to cut through red tape to help people, bending rules if necessary.
"Go ahead and do it," Brown said. "I'll figure out some way to justify it. ... Just let them yell at me."
Bush appeared from a narrow, windowless room at his vacation ranch in Texas, with his elbows on a table. Hagin was sitting alongside him. Neither asked questions in the Aug. 28 briefing.
"I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm," the president said.
A relaxed Chertoff, sporting a polo shirt, weighed in from Washington at Homeland Security's operations center. He would later fly to Atlanta, outside of Katrina's reach, for a bird flu event.
One snippet captures a missed opportunity on Aug. 28 for the government to have dispatched active-duty military troops to the region to augment the National Guard.
Chertoff: "Are there any DOD assets that might be available? Have we reached out to them?"
Brown: "We have DOD assets over here at EOC (emergency operations center). They are fully engaged. And we are having those discussions with them now."
Chertoff: "Good job."
In fact, active duty troops weren't dispatched until days after the storm. And many states' National Guards had yet to be deployed to the region despite offers of assistance, and it took days before the Pentagon deployed active-duty personnel to help overwhelmed Guardsmen.
The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.
"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.
Other officials expressed concerns about the large number of New Orleans residents who had not evacuated.
"They're not taking patients out of hospitals, taking prisoners out of prisons and they're leaving hotels open in downtown New Orleans. So I'm very concerned about that," Brown said.
Despite the concerns, it ultimately took days for search and rescue teams to reach some hospitals and nursing homes.
Brown also told colleagues one of his top concerns was whether evacuees who went to the New Orleans Superdome—which became a symbol of the failed Katrina response—would be safe and have adequate medical care.
"The Superdome is about 12 feet below sea level.... I don't know whether the roof is designed to stand, withstand a Category Five hurricane," he said.
Brown also wanted to know whether there were enough federal medical teams in place to treat evacuees and the dead in the Superdome.
"Not to be (missing) kind of gross here," Brown interjected, "but I'm concerned" about the medical and mortuary resources "and their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe."
Video Shows Bush Was Warned Before Katrina
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP)—In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.
Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."
The footage—along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by The Associated Press—show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.
Linked by secure video, Bush's confidence on Aug. 28 starkly contrasts with the dire warnings his disaster chief and a cacophony of federal, state and local officials provided during the four days before the storm.
A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the levees and then-Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown told the president and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help evacuees at the Superdome.
"I'm concerned about ... their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe," Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall.
Some of the footage and transcripts from briefings Aug. 25-31 conflicts with the defenses that federal, state and local officials have made in trying to deflect blame and minimize the political fallout from the failed Katrina response:
—Homeland Security officials have said the "fog of war" blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.
"I don't buy the `fog of war' defense," Brown told the AP in an interview Wednesday. "It was a fog of bureaucracy."
—Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility—and Bush was worried too.
White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Brown discussed fears of a levee breach the day the storm hit.
"I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford and then again on Air Force One," Brown said. "He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches."
—Louisiana officials angrily blamed the federal government for not being prepared but the transcripts shows they were still praising FEMA as the storm roared toward the Gulf Coast and even two days afterward. "I think a lot of the planning FEMA has done with us the past year has really paid off," Col. Jeff Smith, Louisiana's emergency preparedness deputy director, said during the Aug. 28 briefing.
It wasn't long before Smith and other state officials sounded overwhelmed.
"We appreciate everything that you all are doing for us, and all I would ask is that you realize that what's going on and the sense of urgency needs to be ratcheted up," Smith said Aug. 30.
Mississippi begged for more attention in that same briefing.
"We know that there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana that need to be rescued, but we would just ask you, we desperately need to get our share of assets because we'll have people dying—not because of water coming up, but because we can't get them medical treatment in our affected counties," said a Mississippi state official whose name was not mentioned on the tape.
Video footage of the Aug. 28 briefing, the final one before Katrina struck, showed an intense Brown voicing concerns from the government's disaster operation center and imploring colleagues to do whatever was necessary to help victims.
"We're going to need everything that we can possibly muster, not only in this state and in the region, but the nation, to respond to this event," Brown warned. He called the storm "a bad one, a big one" and implored federal agencies to cut through red tape to help people, bending rules if necessary.
"Go ahead and do it," Brown said. "I'll figure out some way to justify it. ... Just let them yell at me."
Bush appeared from a narrow, windowless room at his vacation ranch in Texas, with his elbows on a table. Hagin was sitting alongside him. Neither asked questions in the Aug. 28 briefing.
"I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm," the president said.
A relaxed Chertoff, sporting a polo shirt, weighed in from Washington at Homeland Security's operations center. He would later fly to Atlanta, outside of Katrina's reach, for a bird flu event.
One snippet captures a missed opportunity on Aug. 28 for the government to have dispatched active-duty military troops to the region to augment the National Guard.
Chertoff: "Are there any DOD assets that might be available? Have we reached out to them?"
Brown: "We have DOD assets over here at EOC (emergency operations center). They are fully engaged. And we are having those discussions with them now."
Chertoff: "Good job."
In fact, active duty troops weren't dispatched until days after the storm. And many states' National Guards had yet to be deployed to the region despite offers of assistance, and it took days before the Pentagon deployed active-duty personnel to help overwhelmed Guardsmen.
The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.
"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.
Other officials expressed concerns about the large number of New Orleans residents who had not evacuated.
"They're not taking patients out of hospitals, taking prisoners out of prisons and they're leaving hotels open in downtown New Orleans. So I'm very concerned about that," Brown said.
Despite the concerns, it ultimately took days for search and rescue teams to reach some hospitals and nursing homes.
Brown also told colleagues one of his top concerns was whether evacuees who went to the New Orleans Superdome—which became a symbol of the failed Katrina response—would be safe and have adequate medical care.
"The Superdome is about 12 feet below sea level.... I don't know whether the roof is designed to stand, withstand a Category Five hurricane," he said.
Brown also wanted to know whether there were enough federal medical teams in place to treat evacuees and the dead in the Superdome.
"Not to be (missing) kind of gross here," Brown interjected, "but I'm concerned" about the medical and mortuary resources "and their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe."
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
The Dubai Deal: American Security at Risk
Some call it an overreaction that people think that the Dubai Ports World deal taking over control of ports in the United States "dangerous". I do not think it is an overreaction in any sense of the word, neither is it an issue of discrimination against the Muslim world. To think that is simplification of the issue by people with simple minds, wanting only to line their pockets and continue their blind faith in the fearless leadership of George W. Bush.
But let’s have a reality check, shall we?
Security Risks:
The Coast Guard and Homeland Security claim that “100%” of containers entering the United States are screened. Well, I guess that is true based on your definition of screened. There definition of screened is scrutinizing the manifests and documentation of all incoming ships (which must be submitted before they leave the port they are originating from). However, ACTUAL screening, hands on like at all of our airports, is more like 1% of all containers entering the United States.
Now we would be allowing a company owned by a non-democratic state to operate these port terminals. There’s the point: The company is STATE-OWNED. This means that the government, which has been in many ways extraordinarily uncooperative in the so-called “War on Terror”, will be, essentially, in control of these ports.
The United Arab Emirates was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban regime as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The UAE prevented an assault (according to testimony given in Congress by both Richard Clarke and former CIA chief George Tenant) on Osama Bin Laden when we knew where he was, because “we’d have taken out half the royal family (of the UAE)” in the strike. That’s right; half the royal family of the UAE was at a hunting camp in Afghanistan with Osama that day.
Dubai Ports World, in the deal worked out, were allowed to get through without some of the standard restrictions placed on most other foreign countries. They will also be privy to Homeland Security Department briefings on Port Security in the United States. Yes, they will have more security clearance than you or I. They will be able to choose whether or not former involvement in a terrorist organization will prevent someone from being hired. They will decide whether or not to even begin or complete security clearance checks on all employees. They will not have to keep business records on US soil as most foreign businesses doing business within the US are required to do. This prevents those records from being subpoenaed by US courts.
Dubai Ports World also appears that their desire is to control the ports after they have control of the reporters. Their threat to CNN yesterday (refusing interviews, refusing filming of operations in UAE or Hong Kong, if they would be aired on Lou Dobb’s show) just goes to show that their used to state-owned media, and desire the same thing here.
Don’t you think there’s enough of a security risk already? Don’t you think that we should be mindful of the fact that the Coast Guard was unable to make a determination on whether or not Dubai Ports World would be a safe company to do business with? Don’t you think we should be mindful of the fact that it appears that the only people benefiting from this deal in the United States are the Bush Administration, George Bush Sr., Neil Bush, Jeb Bush, and the Carlyle Group?
Is America going to wake up? Or is America going to wake up when it’s too late, and a dirty bomb goes off in Baltimore, in the White House’s backyard, because port security had so severely been eroded? Remember, as citizens in a democracy, we are ultimately responsible for the actions of our government. Including torture, violating the Geneva Conventions, and our total disregard for human rights in the “war on terror”. I do not want the torture of human beings being my responsibility. That is why I say strongly: Not in my name. Not in my country’s name.
Mr. Bush: Ditch the Port Deal. Or Resign.
I, personally, would prefer the latter.
But let’s have a reality check, shall we?
Security Risks:
The Coast Guard and Homeland Security claim that “100%” of containers entering the United States are screened. Well, I guess that is true based on your definition of screened. There definition of screened is scrutinizing the manifests and documentation of all incoming ships (which must be submitted before they leave the port they are originating from). However, ACTUAL screening, hands on like at all of our airports, is more like 1% of all containers entering the United States.
Now we would be allowing a company owned by a non-democratic state to operate these port terminals. There’s the point: The company is STATE-OWNED. This means that the government, which has been in many ways extraordinarily uncooperative in the so-called “War on Terror”, will be, essentially, in control of these ports.
The United Arab Emirates was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban regime as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. The UAE prevented an assault (according to testimony given in Congress by both Richard Clarke and former CIA chief George Tenant) on Osama Bin Laden when we knew where he was, because “we’d have taken out half the royal family (of the UAE)” in the strike. That’s right; half the royal family of the UAE was at a hunting camp in Afghanistan with Osama that day.
Dubai Ports World, in the deal worked out, were allowed to get through without some of the standard restrictions placed on most other foreign countries. They will also be privy to Homeland Security Department briefings on Port Security in the United States. Yes, they will have more security clearance than you or I. They will be able to choose whether or not former involvement in a terrorist organization will prevent someone from being hired. They will decide whether or not to even begin or complete security clearance checks on all employees. They will not have to keep business records on US soil as most foreign businesses doing business within the US are required to do. This prevents those records from being subpoenaed by US courts.
Dubai Ports World also appears that their desire is to control the ports after they have control of the reporters. Their threat to CNN yesterday (refusing interviews, refusing filming of operations in UAE or Hong Kong, if they would be aired on Lou Dobb’s show) just goes to show that their used to state-owned media, and desire the same thing here.
Don’t you think there’s enough of a security risk already? Don’t you think that we should be mindful of the fact that the Coast Guard was unable to make a determination on whether or not Dubai Ports World would be a safe company to do business with? Don’t you think we should be mindful of the fact that it appears that the only people benefiting from this deal in the United States are the Bush Administration, George Bush Sr., Neil Bush, Jeb Bush, and the Carlyle Group?
Is America going to wake up? Or is America going to wake up when it’s too late, and a dirty bomb goes off in Baltimore, in the White House’s backyard, because port security had so severely been eroded? Remember, as citizens in a democracy, we are ultimately responsible for the actions of our government. Including torture, violating the Geneva Conventions, and our total disregard for human rights in the “war on terror”. I do not want the torture of human beings being my responsibility. That is why I say strongly: Not in my name. Not in my country’s name.
Mr. Bush: Ditch the Port Deal. Or Resign.
I, personally, would prefer the latter.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Is Russ Right for U.S.?
The rumor mill in Washington is grinding away again as we approach another presidential election in just over 2 years. Will Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) make a run for the highest office in the land? Many believe he will. Some, including myself, are beginning to feel as though Senator Feingold may be the best choice to run at the top of the ticket for the Democratic Party. Wisconsin seems to love him (we keep sending him back to D.C.). Washington outsiders love him. Washington insiders…well I really don’t know how they feel about Russ. He’s an independent voice, and has become more forceful in recent months in his criticism of the Administration, especially regarding the wiretapping fiasco.
Russ co-authored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, which was much needed in this country. More needs to be done, and neither Senators McCain nor Feingold have given up their fights for reforming the mess that is campaign finance. One only has to look to the actions of Tom DeLay and other Republicans (and a few Democrats) with ties to the Jack Abramoff disaster.
Senator Feingold is the only US Senator that voted against the Patriot Act, citing back then the concerns that many are expressing now. He stood up for not sacrificing liberty for safety (because if we do, we end up with neither), and still does, recently “threatening” to filibuster the renewal of the Patriot Act by reading the Bill of Rights on the Senate Floor. I think this would be a “smashing” move to bring better attention to what so many Americans are blind to: the destruction of their liberty in exchange for having a foreign country that has been cozy with fundamentalists to control the security of U.S. Ports on the East Coast of the United States. I can’t believe people aren’t screaming in the streets over that news, but that’s for another post.
The Truth Is Out There is currently beginning a review of Senator Feingold’s actions since he became the junior Senator from Wisconsin. I’ll be posting more here. I think, at this point, he may be an important contender in ’08. Our best future lies ahead, and we, whether progressives, liberal, conservative, or neo-conservative should all be mindful of what we really stand for, and hold those accountable who have not “played by the rules” and not done what we have elected them to do.
Information on Sen. Feingold is welcome. Of course, unfounded slams or outright NeoCon lies will just be highlighted for exposing the continued attack mode of the fearful Administration.
Russ co-authored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, which was much needed in this country. More needs to be done, and neither Senators McCain nor Feingold have given up their fights for reforming the mess that is campaign finance. One only has to look to the actions of Tom DeLay and other Republicans (and a few Democrats) with ties to the Jack Abramoff disaster.
Senator Feingold is the only US Senator that voted against the Patriot Act, citing back then the concerns that many are expressing now. He stood up for not sacrificing liberty for safety (because if we do, we end up with neither), and still does, recently “threatening” to filibuster the renewal of the Patriot Act by reading the Bill of Rights on the Senate Floor. I think this would be a “smashing” move to bring better attention to what so many Americans are blind to: the destruction of their liberty in exchange for having a foreign country that has been cozy with fundamentalists to control the security of U.S. Ports on the East Coast of the United States. I can’t believe people aren’t screaming in the streets over that news, but that’s for another post.
The Truth Is Out There is currently beginning a review of Senator Feingold’s actions since he became the junior Senator from Wisconsin. I’ll be posting more here. I think, at this point, he may be an important contender in ’08. Our best future lies ahead, and we, whether progressives, liberal, conservative, or neo-conservative should all be mindful of what we really stand for, and hold those accountable who have not “played by the rules” and not done what we have elected them to do.
Information on Sen. Feingold is welcome. Of course, unfounded slams or outright NeoCon lies will just be highlighted for exposing the continued attack mode of the fearful Administration.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Senator Feingold Press Release: Patriot Act Delay
February 16, 2006
"The Majority Leader's concession to put off final votes on the Patriot Act deal for almost two weeks gives the Senate time to consider whether this deal is good for the country, and allows the American people their chance to be heard. Contrary to an erroneous news report, I will continue to oppose this flawed deal, insist that the Senate jump through every procedural hoop, and demand the right to offer amendments to improve it. As Chairman Specter noted, the deal makes only "cosmetic" changes to the Patriot Act. No amount of cosmetics can disguise the fact that it fails to protect the rights and freedoms of law-abiding Americans."
Earmark Reform (Cut the Fat)
It is time for some serious earmark reform in the United States Congress. President Bush continues to pay lip service to his support for earmark reform (as he did once again in the
President Reagan refused to sign the Highway Bill in the 80’s because of the excessive number of earmarks, which totaled around 150. Last year (2005), the highway bill contained nearly 15,000 earmarks, and our president did not even bat an eye before signing it, and all that wasted pork money, into law. Why, when we’re fighting a war and facing astronomical debt, are we handing out favors to Congressman’s pet projects in their respective districts (bringing home the bacon, guaranteeing votes in their next election)? Is it more important to feed and shelter the victims of Hurricane Katrina and help in their rebuilding effort, or to build a
The Republicans and the Democrats both have big problems with this (the bridge to nowhere was a pet project of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), and the Sculpture Park in Seattle was a pet project of a Democratic Senator from Washington. The Republicans have proven themselves to be anything but fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative. The earmark through the roof numbers have been since they gained control of the Congress in 1994 with the “Contract with
This is corruption fuel. Earmarks are stealing our children’s future by robbing their tax dollars for things that are not in the national interest at this time. Time to end the Culture of Corruption that currently thrives. Earmark reform is needed. Support anyone who supports earmark reform. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is an issue of your tax dollars being used for anything but your best interests.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Senator Byrd on Wiretapping
Senator Byrd's Speech-Scathing Indictment of the wiretapping policy--Mr. President, in June of 2004, 10 peace activists outside of Haliburton, Inc., in Houston gathered to protest the company's war profiteering. They wore paper hats and were handing out peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches, calling attention to Haliburton's reported overcharging on a food contract for American troops in Iraq.
Unbeknownst to them, they were being watched. U.S. Army personnel at the top-secret Counterintelligence Field Activity or CIFA, saw the protest as a potential threat to national security.
CIFA was created 3 years ago by the Defense Department. Its official role is "force-protection", that is, tracking threats and terrorist plots against military installations and personnel inside the United States. In 2003, then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz authorized a fact-gathering operation code-named TALON, which stands for Threat and Local Observation Notice, that would collect "raw information" about "suspicious incidents" and feed it to CIFA.
In the case of the peanut butter demonstration, the Army wrote a report on the activity and stored it in its files. Newsweek magazine has reported that some TALON reports may have contained information on U.S. citizens that has been retained in Pentagon files. A senior Pentagon official has admitted that the names of these U.S. citizens could number in the thousands.
Is this where we are heading in the land of the free? Are secret government programs that spy on American citizens proliferating? The question is not, "Is Big Brother watching?" It is "How many Big Brothers have we?"
Ever since the New York Times revealed that President George W. Bush has personally authorized surveillance of American citizens without obtaining a warrant, I have become increasingly concerned about dangers to the people's liberty. I believe that both current law and the Constitution may have been violated -- not once, but many times -- and in ways that the Congress and the people may never know because of this White House and its penchant for control and secrecy.
We cannot continue to claim that we are a nation of laws and not of men if our laws and, indeed, even the Constitution of the United States itself, may by summarily breached because of some determination of expediency or because the President says "trust me."
The Fourth Amendment reads clearly, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Congress has already granted the Executive Branch rather extraordinary authority with changes in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allow the government 72 hours after surveillance has begun to apply for a warrant. If this surveillance program is what the President says it is, a program to eavesdrop upon known terrorists in other countries who are conversing with Americans, then there should be no difficulty in obtaining a warrant within 72 hours. One might be tempted to suspect that the real reason that the President authorized warrantless surveillance is because there is no need to have to bother with the inconveniences of probable cause. Without probable cause as a condition of spying on American citizens, the National Security Agency could and can, under this President's direction, spy on anyone and for any reason. We have only the President's word, his "trust me", to protect the privacy of the law-abiding citizens of this country. And one must be especially wary of an Administration that seems to feel that what it judges to be a good end, always justifies any means. It is, in fact, not only illegal under our system, but morally reprehensible to spy on citizens without probable cause of wrongdoing. When such practices are sanctioned by our own President, what is the message we are sending to other countries which the United States is trying to convince to adopt our system? It must be painfully obvious to them that a President, who can spy at will on any citizen, is very unlike the model of democracy that the Administration is trying to sell abroad.
In the name of "fighting terror" are we to sacrifice every freedom to a President's demand? How far are we to go? Can a President order warrantless house-by-house searches of a neighborhood, where he suspects a terrorist may be hiding? Can he impose new restrictions on what can be printed, broadcast, or even uttered privately, because of some perceived threat to national security? Laughable thoughts? I think not. For this Administration has so traumatized the people of this nation -- and many in the Congress -- that some will swallow whole whatever rubbish that is spewed from this White House, as long as it is in some tenuous way connected to the so-called war on terror.
And the phrase, "war on terror," while catchy, certainly is a misnomer. Terror is a tactic used by all manner of violent organizations to achieve their goals. It has been around since time began, and will likely be with us on the last day of planet earth. We were attacked by Bin Laden and by his organization Al Qaeda. If anything, what we are engaged in should, more properly, be called, a war on the Al Qaeda network. But, that is too limiting for an Administration that loves power as much as this one. A war on the Al Qaeda network might conceivably be over some day. A war on the Al Qaeda network might have achievable, measurable objectives, and it would be less able to be used as a rationale for almost any government action. It would be harder to periodically traumatize and terrorize the U.S. public, thereby justifying a reason for stamping secret on far too many government programs and activities. Why hasn't Congress been thoroughly briefed on the President's secret eavesdropping program, or on other secret domestic monitoring programs run by the Pentagon or other government entities? Is it because keeping official secrets prevents annoying Congressional oversight? Revealing this program in its entirety to too many members of Congress could certainly have unmasked its probable illegality at a much earlier date, and may have allowed members of Congress to pry information out of the White House that the Judiciary Committee could not pry out of Attorney General Gonzales, who seems genuinely confused about whom he works for -- the public or his old boss, the President.
Attorney General Gonzales refused to divulge whether or not purely domestic communications have also been caught up in this warrantless surveillance, and he refused to assure the Senate Judiciary Committee and the American public that the Administration has not deliberately tapped Americans' telephone calls and computers or searched their homes without warrants. Nor would he reveal whether even a single arrest has resulted from the program.
And what about the First Amendment? What about the chilling effect that warrantless eavesdropping is already having on those law-abiding American citizens who may not support the war in Iraq, or who may simply communicate with friends or relatives overseas? Eventually, the feeling that no conversation is private will cause perfectly innocent people to think carefully before they candidly express opinions or even say something in jest.
Already we have heard suggestions from the Attorney General and others that Freedom of the Press should be subject to new restrictions. And who among us can feel comfortable knowing that the National Security Agency has been operating with an expansive view of its role since 2001, forwarding wholesale information from foreign intelligence communication intercepts involving American citizens, including the names of individuals to the FBI, in a departure from past practices, and tapping some of the country's main telecommunications arteries in order to trace and analyze information.
The Administration could have come to Congress to address any too cumbersome aspects of the FISA law in the revised Patriot Act which the Administration proposed, but they did not, probably because they wished the completely unfettered power to do whatever they pleased, the laws and the Constitution be damned.
I plead with the American public to tune-in to what is happening in this country. Please forget the political party with which you may usually be associated, and, instead, think about the right of due process, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a private life. Forget the now tired political spin that, if one does not support warrant-less spying, then one may be a bosom buddy of Osama Bin Laden.
Focus on what's happening to truth in this country and then read President Bush's statement to a Buffalo, New York audience on April 24, 2004:
"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." That statement is false and the President knew it was false when he made it because he had authorized the government to wiretap without a court order shortly after the 2001 attacks.
This President, in my judgement, may have broken the law, and most certainly has violated the spirit of the Constitution and the public trust.
Yet, I hear strange comments coming from some members of Congress to the effect that well, if the President has broken the law, let's just change the law. That is tantamount to saying that whatever the President does is legal, and the last time we heard that claim was from the White House of Richard M. Nixon. Congress must rise to the occasion here and demand answers to the serious questions surrounding warrantless spying. And Congress must stop being spooked by false charges that unless it goes along in blind obedience with every outrageous violation of the separation of powers, it is soft on terrorism. Perhaps we can take courage from The American Bar Association which on Monday, February 13, denounced President Bush's warrantless surveillance, and expressed the view that he had exceeded his Constitutional powers.
There is a need for a thorough investigation of all of our domestic spying programs. We have to know what is being done, by whom, and to whom. We need to know if the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act has been breached, and if the Constitutional rights of thousands of Americans have been violated without cause. The question is, can the Congress, under control of the President's political party conduct the type of thorough, far-ranging investigation which is necessary? It is absolutely essential that Congress try, because it is vital to at least attempt the proper restoration of the checks and balances. Unfortunately, in a congressional election year, the effort will most likely be seriously hampered by politics.
I want to know how many Americans have been spied upon. I want to know how it is determined which individuals are monitored and who makes such determinations. I want to know if the telecommunications industry is involved in a massive screening of the domestic telephone calls of ordinary Americans. I want to know if the United States Post Office is involved. I want to know if the law has been broken and the Constitution has been breached.
Lord Acton once observed that, "Everything secret degenerates, even the Administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity."
The culture of secrecy which has deepened since the attacks on September 11 has presented this nation with an awful dilemma. In order to protect this open society are we to believe that measures must be taken that in insidious and unconstitutional ways close it down? I believe that the answer must be an emphatic "no."
Speech text found on Raw Story
Monday, February 13, 2006
Boycott Yahoo!
I have to agree with the Martian Anthropologist and say "Boycott Yahoo!".
I am.
Also, if you need a Gmail account to get rid of using Yahoo!, just post your email in a comment and I'll send you an invitation for Gmail.
Again, Boycott Yahoo!
I am.
Also, if you need a Gmail account to get rid of using Yahoo!, just post your email in a comment and I'll send you an invitation for Gmail.
Again, Boycott Yahoo!
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Canadian Mass Murder of Seals
The Canadian Government, according to BBC News and other sources, has allowed a massive hunt of seals, up to 300,000 of them in March, 2006.
Here are some of the details on how you can take action (if you so choose) to help stop this senseless and needless destruction of life:
Contact the Canadian Embassy in your country.
* United States: 501 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20001; Telephone: (202) 682-1740; Fax: (202) 682-7726; E-mail: webmaster@canadianembassy.org; URL: http://www.canadianembassy.org.
* India: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/asia/new-delhi/
* United Kingdom: http://www.canada.org.uk/
You can also view this post at the Spiritual Democracy Forum for more information:
Spiritual Democracy Forum: Stop the Clubbing of 300,000 Seals
Thanks for your time. Together we can all make a difference and ensure the truth shines like the sun on all things at all times.
Here are some of the details on how you can take action (if you so choose) to help stop this senseless and needless destruction of life:
Contact the Canadian Embassy in your country.
* United States: 501 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20001; Telephone: (202) 682-1740; Fax: (202) 682-7726; E-mail: webmaster@canadianembassy.org; URL: http://www.canadianembassy.org.
* India: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/asia/new-delhi/
* United Kingdom: http://www.canada.org.uk/
You can also view this post at the Spiritual Democracy Forum for more information:
Spiritual Democracy Forum: Stop the Clubbing of 300,000 Seals
Thanks for your time. Together we can all make a difference and ensure the truth shines like the sun on all things at all times.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
It is right to delay Alito
Get in on this vote now:
Should Alito get an up or down vote?
Regarding whether or not a filibuster is warranted in the atrocious pick of Samuel Alito.
The Democrats must grow a background and scrounge up the 41 votes needed to extend the debate. It is time the debate focused on all the issues facing us, and that Alito is a step in the wrong direction for America's future.
Any Democratic Presidential hopeful (Kerry, Feingold, Clinton, Bayh) must stand up (Kerry already has) and support a filibuster. If they don't, they should forfeit the support of Democrats and Progressives. We need spine if we wish to take back America. We need it now.
Should Alito get an up or down vote?
Regarding whether or not a filibuster is warranted in the atrocious pick of Samuel Alito.
The Democrats must grow a background and scrounge up the 41 votes needed to extend the debate. It is time the debate focused on all the issues facing us, and that Alito is a step in the wrong direction for America's future.
Any Democratic Presidential hopeful (Kerry, Feingold, Clinton, Bayh) must stand up (Kerry already has) and support a filibuster. If they don't, they should forfeit the support of Democrats and Progressives. We need spine if we wish to take back America. We need it now.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
On Being an American
I have been finding it amusing (and a bit concerning) that many Americans have rushed to defend Bush's domestic spying program, and many of his questionable actions since September 11th, 2001. "It is for our safety!" "We're at war. We need to have a little less freedom to ensure the safety of the homeland." (Note to that setiment, it was the best argument for a certain party in power in a certain European country in the late 1930's).
Give up freedom for safety. Hmmm.
The only reply to that shameful argument would be to use the words of one of our Founding Fathers.
Back in 1755, Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Enough said. Thanks Ben!
Give up freedom for safety. Hmmm.
The only reply to that shameful argument would be to use the words of one of our Founding Fathers.
Back in 1755, Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Enough said. Thanks Ben!
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Happy New Year
Happy New Year!!
2006
Welcome the year in which we take back the America our Founding Fathers intended for us. Through the power of Democracy, we shall show the world that the United States of America that I know loves freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all mankind. ALL mankind.
2006
Welcome the year in which we take back the America our Founding Fathers intended for us. Through the power of Democracy, we shall show the world that the United States of America that I know loves freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all mankind. ALL mankind.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Merry Chanukwanzamas.
Why are the holidays, the time when “miracles” should be happening (you know, angels get their wings when a bell rings, 34th Street, etc.), the time that I begin to really think this world is filled with a bunch of frickin’ assholes?
First, there’s all the people having a hissy fit over whether the tree in the capitol here in Madison, WI should be called the “Holiday Tree” or the “Christmas Tree.” Well, it’s officially a Holiday Tree. Deal with it. I will call it a Christmas tree if I want. I’ve never seen a Thanksgiving tree, a New Year’s tree, or even a Easter Tree (well, I guess I have, but it certainly wasn’t decorated except by nails). So, it is, and always will be, a Christmas tree to me. And I’ll call it that if I want. So the PC got their “holiday wish”. No Christmas tree in the state capital. Whoop-de-frickin’-do. How about holding the government accountable so that more troops could be home for the “holidays” instead of off creating an Islamic Republic sanctioned by the United States?
Second, there’s the Jesus Freaks. Yes, I’m calling them what they really are. Freaks because they think that they are the only ones that are right in the world, and they know how the rest of us should run our lives. Funny, as a Christian, I had always thought that was God’s job. Not ours. We’re created in His likeness. We’re not Him. Stop acting like it. Just this week someone defaced a sign where I work because it said “Holiday Tree” on a flyer that raises money for various charities in the community. They crossed out “holiday” and wrote in “Christmas”. The response was to replace the sign and hang a sign above it: “Please do not deface these signs. WPS recognizes all holidays.” There, enough said, so back off. Because whomever did that would be just as pissed if someone crossed out “holiday” and wrote in Ramadan. Or Hanukkah. Or Kwanza.
Yes, I am angry. So I’m getting it out of my system. Here and now. Merry Christmas. If you don’t celebrate it, I don’t care. Happy Hanukkah. If you don’t celebrate it, I don’t care. Happy Holidays. And Happy New Year. And if you don’t like the holidays at all, I don’t care. It really is just another day on the calendar. Because if people can’t agree on anything at THIS time of year except on who has the best early bird Saturday sale at the mall, then we’re all screwed, and we might as well just say “no more holidays.” And then we’ll take away Valentine’s Day (Saint Valentine! Yes, a religious holiday). Easter. Saint Patrick’s Day. Thanksgiving (who are we giving thanks to?). Might as well get rid of Memorial Day, too. Someone might be offended and think we honor war, not the war dead. And, probably the 4th of July as well. After all, it is the birthday of a nation that was founded on Christian principles. Oh, and the money! It’s got to go. “In God We Trust” is apparently offensive to some. To me, it’s a bald faced lie. This administration does not trust God. Only money. Power. Greed. Control.
So Merry Christmas-Hanukkah-Ramadan-Kwanza-New Year. Unless you’re Chinese or Jewish. Then I think I have to wish you Happy New Year on a different day if I remember correctly.
Happy Holidays. Get in the spirit. Make a change. Celebrate life. Quit the whining for just a few days. Please. Just smile. And put that dollar or loose change in that red bucket next to the poor volunteer freezing his “special place” off ringing that bell.
We could all use a little Salvation right now.
First, there’s all the people having a hissy fit over whether the tree in the capitol here in Madison, WI should be called the “Holiday Tree” or the “Christmas Tree.” Well, it’s officially a Holiday Tree. Deal with it. I will call it a Christmas tree if I want. I’ve never seen a Thanksgiving tree, a New Year’s tree, or even a Easter Tree (well, I guess I have, but it certainly wasn’t decorated except by nails). So, it is, and always will be, a Christmas tree to me. And I’ll call it that if I want. So the PC got their “holiday wish”. No Christmas tree in the state capital. Whoop-de-frickin’-do. How about holding the government accountable so that more troops could be home for the “holidays” instead of off creating an Islamic Republic sanctioned by the United States?
Second, there’s the Jesus Freaks. Yes, I’m calling them what they really are. Freaks because they think that they are the only ones that are right in the world, and they know how the rest of us should run our lives. Funny, as a Christian, I had always thought that was God’s job. Not ours. We’re created in His likeness. We’re not Him. Stop acting like it. Just this week someone defaced a sign where I work because it said “Holiday Tree” on a flyer that raises money for various charities in the community. They crossed out “holiday” and wrote in “Christmas”. The response was to replace the sign and hang a sign above it: “Please do not deface these signs. WPS recognizes all holidays.” There, enough said, so back off. Because whomever did that would be just as pissed if someone crossed out “holiday” and wrote in Ramadan. Or Hanukkah. Or Kwanza.
Yes, I am angry. So I’m getting it out of my system. Here and now. Merry Christmas. If you don’t celebrate it, I don’t care. Happy Hanukkah. If you don’t celebrate it, I don’t care. Happy Holidays. And Happy New Year. And if you don’t like the holidays at all, I don’t care. It really is just another day on the calendar. Because if people can’t agree on anything at THIS time of year except on who has the best early bird Saturday sale at the mall, then we’re all screwed, and we might as well just say “no more holidays.” And then we’ll take away Valentine’s Day (Saint Valentine! Yes, a religious holiday). Easter. Saint Patrick’s Day. Thanksgiving (who are we giving thanks to?). Might as well get rid of Memorial Day, too. Someone might be offended and think we honor war, not the war dead. And, probably the 4th of July as well. After all, it is the birthday of a nation that was founded on Christian principles. Oh, and the money! It’s got to go. “In God We Trust” is apparently offensive to some. To me, it’s a bald faced lie. This administration does not trust God. Only money. Power. Greed. Control.
So Merry Christmas-Hanukkah-Ramadan-Kwanza-New Year. Unless you’re Chinese or Jewish. Then I think I have to wish you Happy New Year on a different day if I remember correctly.
Happy Holidays. Get in the spirit. Make a change. Celebrate life. Quit the whining for just a few days. Please. Just smile. And put that dollar or loose change in that red bucket next to the poor volunteer freezing his “special place” off ringing that bell.
We could all use a little Salvation right now.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Saturday, November 12, 2005
You Are Not Our Leaders
The following is a letter (in its entirety) from Dr. Wayne Dyer (author of “The Power of Intention
”). All I can say at this point about this letter is it certainly creates “contrast” for me, and has me thinking about the direction and future of what I’ll be writing about, not only here on ‘The Truth Is Out There’ (which will always attempt to speak the truth), but over at Powerful Intentions and The Spiritual Democracy Forum. Maybe this will be a wake-up call to some of you out there—get involved—in the most positive way—and you’ll only be able to see positive results. I’m definitely looking forward to the “debate” this letter could create. I expect to see a spirited one in the comments. Those who cannot think for themselves need not apply…
To Our Politicians From a Spiritual Working Stiff
I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Frankly, I still have difficulty with the labels, conservative and liberal.
Those who know me have never been able to pigeonhole me.
I relate to Kierkegaard's observation: "Once you label me, you negate me." In truth, I am a working stiff.
I grew up on the east side of Detroit and spent several years in foster homes. I had a father who spent some time in prison, abused alcohol and five wives, and died of cirrhosis of the liver at age 49, never having known his three boys, after walking out on my mother.
I attended the Detroit public schools, entered the Navy at 18, spent four years on board ships and overseas. I worked my way through three degree programs as a stock boy and cashier at a large supermarket chain, graduating with a Ph.D. in Educational Counseling.
I have been a schoolteacher, counselor, and college professor.
As of this date, I work as a lecturer and writer, also producing video and audiotape programs on motivation, spirituality, and higher consciousness.
I have worked all my life, paid my taxes, supported my family, and continue to "chop wood and carry water," while being totally perplexed by what I hear coming out of the mouths of our politicians.
As a working stiff who has earned enough to be in that top 1 percent income bracket, here is what I would like you, the politicians, to hear as you go about the business of government. These are views shared by most of the people I speak to every day, in all income brackets.
YOU ARE NOT OUR LEADERS.
No one that I know goes to sleep at night saying,
"My leaders are in Washington, D.C."
I fume when you refer to yourselves as our leaders. You may pass laws while sitting in committees and having Rose Garden ceremonies, but the laws come after the real leadership has been implemented.
No politician was responsible for leading us in the struggle for civil rights. Rosa Parks was a leader. Those who marched and ignored the racist laws passed by lawmakers were the leaders of the civil rights movement.
Who were the leaders of the Renaissance? The office holders? The politicians? No! The leaders were those who brought the world a new consciousness through their writing, art, music, and through challenging the entrenched ideologies of the office holders. These were the leaders.
When I hear you refer to yourselves as our leaders, I am always amused by such arrogance. We go to work and send up to 50 percent of our earnings to you. You use our earnings to make yourselves more privileged than we are, with unlimited medical care, overly generous retirement guarantees, and perks galore! All that you really do is write the rules using our funds to do so.
This might be hard to accept, but try it on for size. We are not sheep who need to be led. We need servants who care. We are perfectly capable of leading ourselves; in fact, we do it every day.
YOU DO NOT CREATE JOBS.
I have written 20 books, produced hundred of tapes, and given several thousand lectures over the past 25 years. When I sit down and create a book, I send it to an editor who I pay to edit the manuscript.
The way I see it, I just created a job. My editor receives payment, sends in her taxes, and now two are working. The editing process involves a computer.
A third job is created. The publisher copy-edits the manuscript, and a fourth job is created. This process continues through many levels, with job after job being created all because I decided to write a book. The printers, inspectors, typesetters, delivery people, booksellers, accountants, stock boys, and cashiers all have jobs that were created because working stiffs have the ingenuity, gumption, and desire to create and produce.
The woman who loves flowers and decides to open a floral shop creates jobs.
Without her desire and sweat, we wouldn't need floral coolers, delivery trucks, or growers. Nor would we need people to grow food to feed those workers or design garments to clothe them.
The money you use to fund job-producing legislation originates from those who produce. It is really quite simple.
Politicians do not create jobs.
As I see it, through the eyes of a working stiff, politicians can pass laws that will ultimately determine whether anyone finds being productive worth the effort any longer. If you decide to punish me with tax rules, over-regulate me, or constantly make my life miserable with forms, rules, and regulations, I may decide that writing another book is no longer worth the effort. If I decide that, and you multiply me by the millions of us who produce wealth and jobs, you will see that you do not produce jobs or wealth with our policies.
You print money. You regulate. You pass laws. But we produce jobs. We create wealth by working and producing, not by sitting in committees and talking up our self-importance.
ACT ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IS MORAL AND FAIR, NOT ON HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED.
I heard over and over in the election debate that the inheritance tax should remain because only 2 percent of the population is affected by this tax. I have paid all of the taxes I owe to my government. What is left is mine to do with as I please. My death ought not trigger another tax on my remaining savings that have been already taxed.
It does not matter if the tax affects one person or a million people. It is simply wrong. When our ancestors moved to abolish slavery, they didn't say, "Only 2 percent of the populations is enslaved, so let's keep this practice lawful." They finally realized that slavery was morally wrong.
Let those who aspire to greater abundance in their lives do so knowing that politicians are not going to confiscate it at the moment of their death. Do what's right and what's moral, even when it affects only a small percentage of the population.
STOP MIXING PERCENTAGES AND DOLLAR AMOUNTS AS A RATIONALE FOR YOUR PHILOSOPHY.
If there is a surplus in tax revenues, it is an overpayment and belongs to those who sent it in. It ought to be returned in the same lawful proportion that it went in.
If I paid one million dollars in taxes, it is not so outrageous that I should have returned to me a higher dollar amount than someone who sent in $2,000 in taxes. To say that the wealthy will receive $18,000 each while the poor will only get an $1,800 tax cut is a spurious argument. If you paid no tax, you don't get a tax cut. You can't cut zero and get something back. If you paid $200,000 in taxes and you get a $40,000 refund, that's a 20 percent tax cut. If you paid $500,000 in taxes and you get back $20,000, that is only a 4 percent tax cut.
It stands to reason that if you are going to ask the top 10 percent of income earners to foot over 50 percent of the tax bills, then when it comes time to cut the taxes and return the surpluses, it ought to go back to the taxpayers in the same proportion.
Similarly, if the bottom 40 percent of wage earners pay no taxes, then they get no refund. It may not appeal to most voters, but it makes sense to this working stiff who has been in all of those tax brackets at one time or another in his life.
WE DON'T NEED YOU TO FIGHT FOR US.
"I'll fight for you" seems to be the mantra of the modern politician. Just who are you fighting anyway? Aren't you all there in Washington to serve us? Don't you realize that fighting weakens you and rarely accomplishes anything?
I would like for you to work for me, not fight. Tell me what you are for, rather than what you oppose. I don't need to see any more debates.
You are not running against anyone. You have no opponents. The person who is on the ballot with you is not someone you need to fight. Just tell me what you support and how you intend to make it happen, and let the other candidates do the same. I don't need you to fight. I need you to state your vision clearly and commit to bringing it about.
In 1967, Mother Teresa was asked to march against the war in Vietnam, and she refused, saying, "I won't march against anything. But when you have a march for peace, I'll be there." Let this spirit infuse your intentions.
*YOU DON'T EMPOWER US. WE ARE ALREADY POWERFUL.
My most disconcerting moments in the election season were hearing, "We're for the people, they're for the powerful," and then seeing this slogan as a USA Today headline the next day. It became a mantra for the last six weeks of the campaign.
Inherent in such a phrase is the idea that the people are not powerful, only those who are well off are empowered. Generation after generation of people in America have come to believe this line of thinking: "You have no power, but we, your leaders in Washington, will do it for you."
It is just this kind of thinking that leads people to assume they are powerless to advance, to create their own greatness, to attract abundance and health into their lives, to transcend the ordinary levels of disempowerment.
I want to hear you say, "You are powerful; you are connected to the divine, and with God you can accomplish anything you make up your mind to do. If you see others who appear to be more powerful than you, then associate with them and emulate their strengths.
Create a powerful vision for yourself.
Don't find fault with those who have elevated themselves. Learn from them, find your own serenity and grace, and know that you are powerful.
I'll support such a vision in all legislation. Keep your hopes high."
In Wisdom of the Ages, I wrote an essay based upon Michelangelo's observation: "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."
I want to hear you speak of high hopes, of the power of our spirit, a spirit that knows no favorites and is in each and every one of us.
DON'T GIVE YOURSELF WHAT YOU DENY TO THOSE WHO PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE!
If we send a portion of our income to you, don't use that money to vote yourself benefits that we are denied. If you get universal medical coverage paid for by those of us who created wealth, then be sure to grant it by law to all of us.
If you get to retire with 90 percent of your paycheck, then be sure that we who pay for it get the same perk.
Be ever mindful of your role. You have elected to be a servant of the people. The people own the house. They built it. But they can't run it every day nor can they protect it, and build roads leading up to it.
The people can't educate the children and regulate the economy because they are too busy working. So they hire servants to handle these duties, and they pay those servants to protect, regulate, and handle the affairs of housekeeping.
But the house is still owned by the people. The servants don't get to make demands. The people do. The servants don't own the funds they receive for protecting, regulating, and delegating.
The people do. It's our house. We the powerful working stiffs of America own it.
We lead ourselves every day, and if you want to speak to us, do it from your heart, without a Teleprompter or a spin doctor at your side. We are honest, hardworking, and straightforward. We are generous and kind to those in need.
We don't need to be coddled or lied to. We can smell insincerity and BS a mile away. We pay the freight and keep it moving across America every day.
Not because you are leading us. We are not following you or anyone else.
There is a spirit in all of us. A spirit that urges us upward to a greater connection to that which is just, moral, and honest.
We expect no less from those who have chosen to serve.
- Wayne Dyer
Tagged: Wayne|Intentions|Society|Politics|Current
”). All I can say at this point about this letter is it certainly creates “contrast” for me, and has me thinking about the direction and future of what I’ll be writing about, not only here on ‘The Truth Is Out There’ (which will always attempt to speak the truth), but over at Powerful Intentions and The Spiritual Democracy Forum. Maybe this will be a wake-up call to some of you out there—get involved—in the most positive way—and you’ll only be able to see positive results. I’m definitely looking forward to the “debate” this letter could create. I expect to see a spirited one in the comments. Those who cannot think for themselves need not apply…To Our Politicians From a Spiritual Working Stiff
I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Frankly, I still have difficulty with the labels, conservative and liberal.
Those who know me have never been able to pigeonhole me.
I relate to Kierkegaard's observation: "Once you label me, you negate me." In truth, I am a working stiff.
I grew up on the east side of Detroit and spent several years in foster homes. I had a father who spent some time in prison, abused alcohol and five wives, and died of cirrhosis of the liver at age 49, never having known his three boys, after walking out on my mother.
I attended the Detroit public schools, entered the Navy at 18, spent four years on board ships and overseas. I worked my way through three degree programs as a stock boy and cashier at a large supermarket chain, graduating with a Ph.D. in Educational Counseling.
I have been a schoolteacher, counselor, and college professor.
As of this date, I work as a lecturer and writer, also producing video and audiotape programs on motivation, spirituality, and higher consciousness.
I have worked all my life, paid my taxes, supported my family, and continue to "chop wood and carry water," while being totally perplexed by what I hear coming out of the mouths of our politicians.
As a working stiff who has earned enough to be in that top 1 percent income bracket, here is what I would like you, the politicians, to hear as you go about the business of government. These are views shared by most of the people I speak to every day, in all income brackets.
YOU ARE NOT OUR LEADERS.
No one that I know goes to sleep at night saying,
"My leaders are in Washington, D.C."
I fume when you refer to yourselves as our leaders. You may pass laws while sitting in committees and having Rose Garden ceremonies, but the laws come after the real leadership has been implemented.
No politician was responsible for leading us in the struggle for civil rights. Rosa Parks was a leader. Those who marched and ignored the racist laws passed by lawmakers were the leaders of the civil rights movement.
Who were the leaders of the Renaissance? The office holders? The politicians? No! The leaders were those who brought the world a new consciousness through their writing, art, music, and through challenging the entrenched ideologies of the office holders. These were the leaders.
When I hear you refer to yourselves as our leaders, I am always amused by such arrogance. We go to work and send up to 50 percent of our earnings to you. You use our earnings to make yourselves more privileged than we are, with unlimited medical care, overly generous retirement guarantees, and perks galore! All that you really do is write the rules using our funds to do so.
This might be hard to accept, but try it on for size. We are not sheep who need to be led. We need servants who care. We are perfectly capable of leading ourselves; in fact, we do it every day.
YOU DO NOT CREATE JOBS.
I have written 20 books, produced hundred of tapes, and given several thousand lectures over the past 25 years. When I sit down and create a book, I send it to an editor who I pay to edit the manuscript.
The way I see it, I just created a job. My editor receives payment, sends in her taxes, and now two are working. The editing process involves a computer.
A third job is created. The publisher copy-edits the manuscript, and a fourth job is created. This process continues through many levels, with job after job being created all because I decided to write a book. The printers, inspectors, typesetters, delivery people, booksellers, accountants, stock boys, and cashiers all have jobs that were created because working stiffs have the ingenuity, gumption, and desire to create and produce.
The woman who loves flowers and decides to open a floral shop creates jobs.
Without her desire and sweat, we wouldn't need floral coolers, delivery trucks, or growers. Nor would we need people to grow food to feed those workers or design garments to clothe them.
The money you use to fund job-producing legislation originates from those who produce. It is really quite simple.
Politicians do not create jobs.
As I see it, through the eyes of a working stiff, politicians can pass laws that will ultimately determine whether anyone finds being productive worth the effort any longer. If you decide to punish me with tax rules, over-regulate me, or constantly make my life miserable with forms, rules, and regulations, I may decide that writing another book is no longer worth the effort. If I decide that, and you multiply me by the millions of us who produce wealth and jobs, you will see that you do not produce jobs or wealth with our policies.
You print money. You regulate. You pass laws. But we produce jobs. We create wealth by working and producing, not by sitting in committees and talking up our self-importance.
ACT ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IS MORAL AND FAIR, NOT ON HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED.
I heard over and over in the election debate that the inheritance tax should remain because only 2 percent of the population is affected by this tax. I have paid all of the taxes I owe to my government. What is left is mine to do with as I please. My death ought not trigger another tax on my remaining savings that have been already taxed.
It does not matter if the tax affects one person or a million people. It is simply wrong. When our ancestors moved to abolish slavery, they didn't say, "Only 2 percent of the populations is enslaved, so let's keep this practice lawful." They finally realized that slavery was morally wrong.
Let those who aspire to greater abundance in their lives do so knowing that politicians are not going to confiscate it at the moment of their death. Do what's right and what's moral, even when it affects only a small percentage of the population.
STOP MIXING PERCENTAGES AND DOLLAR AMOUNTS AS A RATIONALE FOR YOUR PHILOSOPHY.
If there is a surplus in tax revenues, it is an overpayment and belongs to those who sent it in. It ought to be returned in the same lawful proportion that it went in.
If I paid one million dollars in taxes, it is not so outrageous that I should have returned to me a higher dollar amount than someone who sent in $2,000 in taxes. To say that the wealthy will receive $18,000 each while the poor will only get an $1,800 tax cut is a spurious argument. If you paid no tax, you don't get a tax cut. You can't cut zero and get something back. If you paid $200,000 in taxes and you get a $40,000 refund, that's a 20 percent tax cut. If you paid $500,000 in taxes and you get back $20,000, that is only a 4 percent tax cut.
It stands to reason that if you are going to ask the top 10 percent of income earners to foot over 50 percent of the tax bills, then when it comes time to cut the taxes and return the surpluses, it ought to go back to the taxpayers in the same proportion.
Similarly, if the bottom 40 percent of wage earners pay no taxes, then they get no refund. It may not appeal to most voters, but it makes sense to this working stiff who has been in all of those tax brackets at one time or another in his life.
WE DON'T NEED YOU TO FIGHT FOR US.
"I'll fight for you" seems to be the mantra of the modern politician. Just who are you fighting anyway? Aren't you all there in Washington to serve us? Don't you realize that fighting weakens you and rarely accomplishes anything?
I would like for you to work for me, not fight. Tell me what you are for, rather than what you oppose. I don't need to see any more debates.
You are not running against anyone. You have no opponents. The person who is on the ballot with you is not someone you need to fight. Just tell me what you support and how you intend to make it happen, and let the other candidates do the same. I don't need you to fight. I need you to state your vision clearly and commit to bringing it about.
In 1967, Mother Teresa was asked to march against the war in Vietnam, and she refused, saying, "I won't march against anything. But when you have a march for peace, I'll be there." Let this spirit infuse your intentions.
*YOU DON'T EMPOWER US. WE ARE ALREADY POWERFUL.
My most disconcerting moments in the election season were hearing, "We're for the people, they're for the powerful," and then seeing this slogan as a USA Today headline the next day. It became a mantra for the last six weeks of the campaign.
Inherent in such a phrase is the idea that the people are not powerful, only those who are well off are empowered. Generation after generation of people in America have come to believe this line of thinking: "You have no power, but we, your leaders in Washington, will do it for you."
It is just this kind of thinking that leads people to assume they are powerless to advance, to create their own greatness, to attract abundance and health into their lives, to transcend the ordinary levels of disempowerment.
I want to hear you say, "You are powerful; you are connected to the divine, and with God you can accomplish anything you make up your mind to do. If you see others who appear to be more powerful than you, then associate with them and emulate their strengths.
Create a powerful vision for yourself.
Don't find fault with those who have elevated themselves. Learn from them, find your own serenity and grace, and know that you are powerful.
I'll support such a vision in all legislation. Keep your hopes high."
In Wisdom of the Ages, I wrote an essay based upon Michelangelo's observation: "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it."
I want to hear you speak of high hopes, of the power of our spirit, a spirit that knows no favorites and is in each and every one of us.
DON'T GIVE YOURSELF WHAT YOU DENY TO THOSE WHO PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE!
If we send a portion of our income to you, don't use that money to vote yourself benefits that we are denied. If you get universal medical coverage paid for by those of us who created wealth, then be sure to grant it by law to all of us.
If you get to retire with 90 percent of your paycheck, then be sure that we who pay for it get the same perk.
Be ever mindful of your role. You have elected to be a servant of the people. The people own the house. They built it. But they can't run it every day nor can they protect it, and build roads leading up to it.
The people can't educate the children and regulate the economy because they are too busy working. So they hire servants to handle these duties, and they pay those servants to protect, regulate, and handle the affairs of housekeeping.
But the house is still owned by the people. The servants don't get to make demands. The people do. The servants don't own the funds they receive for protecting, regulating, and delegating.
The people do. It's our house. We the powerful working stiffs of America own it.
We lead ourselves every day, and if you want to speak to us, do it from your heart, without a Teleprompter or a spin doctor at your side. We are honest, hardworking, and straightforward. We are generous and kind to those in need.
We don't need to be coddled or lied to. We can smell insincerity and BS a mile away. We pay the freight and keep it moving across America every day.
Not because you are leading us. We are not following you or anyone else.
There is a spirit in all of us. A spirit that urges us upward to a greater connection to that which is just, moral, and honest.
We expect no less from those who have chosen to serve.
- Wayne Dyer
Tagged: Wayne|Intentions|Society|Politics|Current
Friday, November 11, 2005
Is Wal Mart Really Evil?
There's been a lot of discussion, and now a documentary about the evils of Wal Mart. Wal Mart, according to critics, is a greedy monster stealing away business from small business owners, discriminating against its employees by unfair health insurance and promotion practices, and purposely preventing full-time employment for some to cut health costs.
The UFCW Union (United Food and Commercial Workers), of which I am a member (in fairness of disclosure), is one of the leaders in the fight against Wal Mart. Just minutes before writing this post, I was watching 20/20 on ABC, which was discussing one of the "Seven Deadly Sins," Greed. Wal Mart was one of the stories (video available here) because of those who "hate" Wal Mart and believe it is truly evil. The UFCW has been leading the fight for unionization at Wal Mart.
After watching the 20/20 segment on Wal Mart, it got me thinking...is Wal Mart truly evil? Or is Wal Mart a thing that has come along like great changes in corporate history before it? Standard Oil was considered a monstrous monopoly. However, because Standard Oil convinced lower pricing through its ability to provide lower prices, people who used to have to go to bed when it got dark outside were able to afford things like oil for lamps. Their lives were arguably improved because of the perceived "greed" of Rockefeller. Vanderbilt was vilified as well, but made travel cheaper and safer, thereby benefiting society.
Unlike Michael Douglas' character's proclamation in the movie "Wall Street" that "money is a zero sum game", in truth, larger pools of wealth have an effect of doing such things as providing lower prices. When lower prices are available to consumers, they can save more money. Therfore, they (the consumers) are also benefiting from the low costs of Wal Mart. Just like generations before them benefited by the low costs created by giants like Standard Oil. Wealth creates more wealth. It's not a pie where if I get a bigger piece, there's less available to you. On the contrary, if I get a big piece of the pie, your portion could become bigger simply because I'm participating in this "game" called capitalism.
Wal Mart is not evil for providing lower prices. Yes, their employees probably deserve to make more money (but for that, there need to be some attitude adjustments, at least at the ones I visit around my area). Yes, they deserve representation, but only if they feel it is necessary. Many chose to take the jobs. They weren't forced. However, just as many other giant companies, there needs to be protections. Is Wal Mart evil? No. Can they improve? Absolutely. Can we have both an improvement in Wal Mart's "behavior" and maintain the low prices that save over 100 million people money each year? I believe it can be done.
No, it's never a cut and dry situation. There are always grey areas. In the interest of the truth, I present you the sides against and not-so-against Wal Mart. What do you feel about Wal Mart? What can be done to improve the situation?
As a UFCW member, I should probably be boycotting Wal Mart, and admittedly I do contribute to the political action part of the UFCW, which means some of my money is most likely going towards the fight against their proclaimed enemy. However, because of the wages I'm making in the contract I'm in, negotiated by the UFCW, I choose to shop at Wal Mart for certain things. Because when it comes right down to it, my bottom line is the one that matters. To think otherwise is foolish. Without clarity on your bottom line, you cannot effectively help others with their bottom lines. Therefore, no boycotting Wal Mart from me. No, they don't get much of my business (I personally hate shopping there for many reasons, but not the prices), but I will not boycott them. I will not call them "evil." I will call them to task for things that are truly unfair as a social action.
Unionization? Maybe.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.
The UFCW Union (United Food and Commercial Workers), of which I am a member (in fairness of disclosure), is one of the leaders in the fight against Wal Mart. Just minutes before writing this post, I was watching 20/20 on ABC, which was discussing one of the "Seven Deadly Sins," Greed. Wal Mart was one of the stories (video available here) because of those who "hate" Wal Mart and believe it is truly evil. The UFCW has been leading the fight for unionization at Wal Mart.
After watching the 20/20 segment on Wal Mart, it got me thinking...is Wal Mart truly evil? Or is Wal Mart a thing that has come along like great changes in corporate history before it? Standard Oil was considered a monstrous monopoly. However, because Standard Oil convinced lower pricing through its ability to provide lower prices, people who used to have to go to bed when it got dark outside were able to afford things like oil for lamps. Their lives were arguably improved because of the perceived "greed" of Rockefeller. Vanderbilt was vilified as well, but made travel cheaper and safer, thereby benefiting society.
Unlike Michael Douglas' character's proclamation in the movie "Wall Street" that "money is a zero sum game", in truth, larger pools of wealth have an effect of doing such things as providing lower prices. When lower prices are available to consumers, they can save more money. Therfore, they (the consumers) are also benefiting from the low costs of Wal Mart. Just like generations before them benefited by the low costs created by giants like Standard Oil. Wealth creates more wealth. It's not a pie where if I get a bigger piece, there's less available to you. On the contrary, if I get a big piece of the pie, your portion could become bigger simply because I'm participating in this "game" called capitalism.
Wal Mart is not evil for providing lower prices. Yes, their employees probably deserve to make more money (but for that, there need to be some attitude adjustments, at least at the ones I visit around my area). Yes, they deserve representation, but only if they feel it is necessary. Many chose to take the jobs. They weren't forced. However, just as many other giant companies, there needs to be protections. Is Wal Mart evil? No. Can they improve? Absolutely. Can we have both an improvement in Wal Mart's "behavior" and maintain the low prices that save over 100 million people money each year? I believe it can be done.
No, it's never a cut and dry situation. There are always grey areas. In the interest of the truth, I present you the sides against and not-so-against Wal Mart. What do you feel about Wal Mart? What can be done to improve the situation?
As a UFCW member, I should probably be boycotting Wal Mart, and admittedly I do contribute to the political action part of the UFCW, which means some of my money is most likely going towards the fight against their proclaimed enemy. However, because of the wages I'm making in the contract I'm in, negotiated by the UFCW, I choose to shop at Wal Mart for certain things. Because when it comes right down to it, my bottom line is the one that matters. To think otherwise is foolish. Without clarity on your bottom line, you cannot effectively help others with their bottom lines. Therefore, no boycotting Wal Mart from me. No, they don't get much of my business (I personally hate shopping there for many reasons, but not the prices), but I will not boycott them. I will not call them "evil." I will call them to task for things that are truly unfair as a social action.
Unionization? Maybe.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Monetize
Need some more income without investment?
If you've got your own blog, you should consider monetizing your blog (or website) by using Google AdSense. It's been a blessing for me. I also recommend using FireFox for your web browser. So much better to use than "Internet Exploder".
So check out the links on the right hand side above my profile, get FireFox today w/ the Google Toolbar (another great tool), and monetize your site today! ;-)
And, if something interests you in the Targeted Ads Google provides, check it out.
More coming later on "Why Don't People Think For Themselves Anymore"...the truth of why so many in government (despite party affiliation) and business don't want us thinking on our own anymore...
Regards
--Daniel
If you've got your own blog, you should consider monetizing your blog (or website) by using Google AdSense. It's been a blessing for me. I also recommend using FireFox for your web browser. So much better to use than "Internet Exploder".
So check out the links on the right hand side above my profile, get FireFox today w/ the Google Toolbar (another great tool), and monetize your site today! ;-)
And, if something interests you in the Targeted Ads Google provides, check it out.
More coming later on "Why Don't People Think For Themselves Anymore"...the truth of why so many in government (despite party affiliation) and business don't want us thinking on our own anymore...
Regards
--Daniel
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Rove's Future Questioned
Please note: I'm asking for help. Read about it and join in the conversation and do what you can.
Well, it looks like people in the White House are starting to get a bit "nervous" about Karl Rove's effect on their agenda. According to the Washington Post, there are "private debates" going on about Karl, and whether President Bush will be able to move beyond the CIA Leak scandal as long as Rove remains a close adviser.
Well, it looks like people in the White House are starting to get a bit "nervous" about Karl Rove's effect on their agenda. According to the Washington Post, there are "private debates" going on about Karl, and whether President Bush will be able to move beyond the CIA Leak scandal as long as Rove remains a close adviser.
These days grow more and more interesting. My sincerest hope is that a proper resolution to these issues plaguing not only the Administration, but now the entire country can be found. One that makes us stronger as a nation. Sometimes, as history has proved, there seems to be a requirement of pain before change for the better. It doesn't have to be that way...but it seems it will be in this case.If Rove stays, which colleagues say remains his intention, he may at a minimum have to issue a formal apology for misleading colleagues and the public about his role in conversations that led to the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to senior Republican sources familiar with White House deliberations.
While Rove faces doubts about his White House status, there are new indications that he remains in legal jeopardy from Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's criminal investigation of the Plame leak. The prosecutor spoke this week with an attorney for Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about his client's conversations with Rove before and after Plame's identity became publicly known because of anonymous disclosures by White House officials, according to two sources familiar with the conversation.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Asking For Help
Asking for help is never an easy thing to do...but here it goes.
I know I've got a ton of regular readers and contributors out there, and I appreciate each and every one of you. Now, here's the "problem".
I've been going through a series of events that aren't so pleasant. A near constant health problem has been draining my finances for many months. In 2004, I was laid off by GE Medical Systems because they outsource to India. I lost a nearly $50,000 per year job, now in one that pays less than half that. And there were 9 months in between with little to no income (not for lack of trying, either). Despite my political beliefs as to why some of this happened, I realize it was a series of events, and I must respond. Many of us (myself the poster child) tend to avoid clarity on issues of finances, until it comes up and bites us in the ass. Clarity is powerful--it gives me choices--which lead to results from action--which leads to even more awareness and clarity.
Now, at my current job, we're overstaffed, and I'm not very high in the seniority department yet. The good and the bad of union employment. I also used to write articles for an online business magazine (but they cut back, too) as a freelance writer. I was making some pretty good money, and with good editing I can command a hefty price.
I'm not looking for charity. I'm looking for help to get me started to my goals. I'm looking for ideas. There's several ways--if you're so attracted to "help", for me to acheive some goals:
Heath is number one.
Financing this quest is a part of that.
If you need articles written, e-mail me through my profile. We can discuss fees.
Link to me.
Click on my ads, and consider purchasing an "exclusive ad" from the banner at the top (Ad Brite).
Donate. I'll throw a link up for that (in the meantime, just e-mail me through the profile link)...and with the donations, we're going to be building what I'm calling (for now) "DashPAC" (think of some better names, let me know in the comments), a political action community working on local and national issues that are in the best interests of those who desire fiscal responsibility, fair media, fair trade, fair work rules, and to work against the destructive agendas--as well as "strongly encourage" our Democratic and Independent leaders to take stands and not bow to the political will of the few.
Thanks for reading. I appreciate you.
I know I've got a ton of regular readers and contributors out there, and I appreciate each and every one of you. Now, here's the "problem".
I've been going through a series of events that aren't so pleasant. A near constant health problem has been draining my finances for many months. In 2004, I was laid off by GE Medical Systems because they outsource to India. I lost a nearly $50,000 per year job, now in one that pays less than half that. And there were 9 months in between with little to no income (not for lack of trying, either). Despite my political beliefs as to why some of this happened, I realize it was a series of events, and I must respond. Many of us (myself the poster child) tend to avoid clarity on issues of finances, until it comes up and bites us in the ass. Clarity is powerful--it gives me choices--which lead to results from action--which leads to even more awareness and clarity.
Now, at my current job, we're overstaffed, and I'm not very high in the seniority department yet. The good and the bad of union employment. I also used to write articles for an online business magazine (but they cut back, too) as a freelance writer. I was making some pretty good money, and with good editing I can command a hefty price.
I'm not looking for charity. I'm looking for help to get me started to my goals. I'm looking for ideas. There's several ways--if you're so attracted to "help", for me to acheive some goals:
Heath is number one.
Financing this quest is a part of that.
If you need articles written, e-mail me through my profile. We can discuss fees.
Link to me.
Click on my ads, and consider purchasing an "exclusive ad" from the banner at the top (Ad Brite).
Donate. I'll throw a link up for that (in the meantime, just e-mail me through the profile link)...and with the donations, we're going to be building what I'm calling (for now) "DashPAC" (think of some better names, let me know in the comments), a political action community working on local and national issues that are in the best interests of those who desire fiscal responsibility, fair media, fair trade, fair work rules, and to work against the destructive agendas--as well as "strongly encourage" our Democratic and Independent leaders to take stands and not bow to the political will of the few.
Thanks for reading. I appreciate you.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Worse Case Scenario ("Scalito")
With the nomination to SCOTUS of Samuel Alito, it got my “moon bat” side going a little wild this morning… So I started the below piece of fiction news article. It’s something we may see—admittedly the worse case scenario, but is simply designed to get those of you who don’t care to think a little bit about what is going on in this country…
The story will be expanded in the near future. Let me know what you think. No need to comment on “being crazy,” hell—I’m just being proactive. Call it “War of the Worlds.” Call it insane, but comment on the merits of what you think may happen when the One Party Rule of the United States is set in stone if Alito is confirmed.
Supreme Court Installs Bush as President For Life
ENEMIES OF STATE, AS DEEMED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 1-666 WILL BEGIN PROCESSING THIS AFTERNOON
MARTIAL LAW DECLARED
WASHINGTON, D.C. (The Truth Report): Monday, November 6th, 2006.
With mid-term elections less than 24 hours away, the Supreme Court, headed up with the majority opinion co-authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, have handed down a decision stating that under The Patriot Act II, President George Bush shall be installed as President for life, or until threats against the United States and its territories have been deemed “nominal.” This unprecedented action has led to massive riots around the nation, beginning with the historical University of Wisconsin-Madison outburst while we waited for the Court’s decision.
UW Madison was, in 1967, the place where “the anti-Vietnam movement” was born with the DOW Chemical protest. “The violence is unimaginable” says one student, as Madison Police, followed by National Guard troops “invaded” the campus and violently put down the anti-Bush demonstration of November 5th, 2006. Over 458 students are said to be in “serious condition” at area hospitals, and the UW Hospital has just released a report that approximately 73 students and protesters were killed in the crackdown by police and the National Guard. The results of this protest have spread like wildfire around the nation, with at last count, nearly 350 simultaneous “acts of civil disobedience” occurring on college campuses-large and small-across the nation. Massive protests over the Supreme Court’s decision have also erupted here in Washington, D.C., New York City, San Francisco, Miami, Chicago, and even Houston and Austin. Overseas, London is under a state of emergency, and the European Union has called an emergency meeting to discuss “the disintegration of the world’s most powerful nation into a dangerous dictatorship.” Russia has re-tasked weapons and have upped their alert level to “high” in response to growing threats from the “disintegration of democracy” in the United States.
Reports are flowing in that major media outlets have been surrounded by National Guard and Army troops, along with jamming equipment being used to stop broadcasts and disrupt cell phone communications. Several major Internet Server centers have been taken off-line in an apparent attempt to disrupt (or destroy) Internet communication activity. Major servers are being brought online in other countries to compensate, with a promise that “taking down Internet service on a large scale is the same as a declaration of war by the United States against our people” said a high ranking official for the European Union.
MARTIAL LAW DECLARED WITH “THE ENEMIES OF STATE” EXECUTIVE ORDER 1-666
DEVELOPING…
The story will be expanded in the near future. Let me know what you think. No need to comment on “being crazy,” hell—I’m just being proactive. Call it “War of the Worlds.” Call it insane, but comment on the merits of what you think may happen when the One Party Rule of the United States is set in stone if Alito is confirmed.
Supreme Court Installs Bush as President For Life
ENEMIES OF STATE, AS DEEMED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 1-666 WILL BEGIN PROCESSING THIS AFTERNOON
MARTIAL LAW DECLARED
WASHINGTON, D.C. (The Truth Report): Monday, November 6th, 2006.
With mid-term elections less than 24 hours away, the Supreme Court, headed up with the majority opinion co-authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, have handed down a decision stating that under The Patriot Act II, President George Bush shall be installed as President for life, or until threats against the United States and its territories have been deemed “nominal.” This unprecedented action has led to massive riots around the nation, beginning with the historical University of Wisconsin-Madison outburst while we waited for the Court’s decision.
UW Madison was, in 1967, the place where “the anti-Vietnam movement” was born with the DOW Chemical protest. “The violence is unimaginable” says one student, as Madison Police, followed by National Guard troops “invaded” the campus and violently put down the anti-Bush demonstration of November 5th, 2006. Over 458 students are said to be in “serious condition” at area hospitals, and the UW Hospital has just released a report that approximately 73 students and protesters were killed in the crackdown by police and the National Guard. The results of this protest have spread like wildfire around the nation, with at last count, nearly 350 simultaneous “acts of civil disobedience” occurring on college campuses-large and small-across the nation. Massive protests over the Supreme Court’s decision have also erupted here in Washington, D.C., New York City, San Francisco, Miami, Chicago, and even Houston and Austin. Overseas, London is under a state of emergency, and the European Union has called an emergency meeting to discuss “the disintegration of the world’s most powerful nation into a dangerous dictatorship.” Russia has re-tasked weapons and have upped their alert level to “high” in response to growing threats from the “disintegration of democracy” in the United States.
Reports are flowing in that major media outlets have been surrounded by National Guard and Army troops, along with jamming equipment being used to stop broadcasts and disrupt cell phone communications. Several major Internet Server centers have been taken off-line in an apparent attempt to disrupt (or destroy) Internet communication activity. Major servers are being brought online in other countries to compensate, with a promise that “taking down Internet service on a large scale is the same as a declaration of war by the United States against our people” said a high ranking official for the European Union.
MARTIAL LAW DECLARED WITH “THE ENEMIES OF STATE” EXECUTIVE ORDER 1-666
DEVELOPING…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)