"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence."
Charles Austin Beard
Much has been said regarding the despotic approach to government we have experienced under the Bush administration, but the above quote by Charles Austin Beard nicely illustrates the degree to which we have deluded ourselves by allowing this administration to remain in the White House for another four years.
At what other time in our history have people been so deeply divided by issues such as we face today? Other than the Civil War, can you think of one? Then, the nation was severely divided over the issue of slavery to the extent that war was unavoidable.
Yet, in 2001 the United States had come together unlike any other time in history as a result of the attacks we suffered on September 11. The camaraderie was apparent everywhere you looked. Flags on house fronts, stickers on car bumpers, editorials in the papers. You could not escape the certainty that the people of this nation were as one against the perpetrators of this attack. We would pay any price, face any hardship, and go to any lengths to protect our families and our countrymen.
With near unanimous consensus, the people of the United States wanted an explanation of how this had occurred and assurances that everything would be done to prevent future attacks. Many demanded retribution against those responsible for the numerous deaths of their friends and family members. They all looked to the White House for leadership and direction and counted on the character of the man who had been elected president of the world’s most powerful nation to set the tone and a course of action for the country.
Instead they found George Bush who did not have a clue how to lead this country because he is not a leader. He is merely the mask covering the apparatus that runs the country. George was given his lines and tutored on his mannerisms and temperment to augment his public image. Then he was placed with crowds friendly to his message to exhibit him as a strong, patriotic leader. But by himself, he was incapable of making the most basic decisions, such as what to do immediately after being informed of the attacks. Even the president’s detractors attribute to him the capacity for bad decisions, however this is not the case. The president’s decisions, bad or otherwise are not of his own making. His agenda has been produced for him, making him just another actor following a script. He delivers rhetoric devised to keep him “on message” while ceaselessly advancing the days “talking points”.
The leader that the country looked to on 9/11 for leadership was himself being lead. And the people leading him were not the least interested in what the citizens of this country wanted. They were interested only in how they could use the events of that day to their advantage. A small group of Neoconservatives had been advocating war against Iraq since early in the Clinton administration and viewed 9/11 as the answer to their prayers. Many influential members of the energy industry, already enjoying preferential treatment owing to their association with former Haliburton CEO and current Vice President Dick Cheney, considered US involvement in the middle-east as a welcome matt for expanding their own operations. A growing yet still minority group of religious right wing fanatics saw their opportunity to exploit a relationship with the self-professed “born again” chief executive in the midst of his “crusade” in the heart of the Muslim world.
It is difficult to see how a deception of this magnitude is possible, difficult to understand how it has not been exposed in a free and open society like ours. It is difficult because we have learned to expect our government to be held accountable for its actions. Because we believe that our elected officials would not compromise their integrity by failing to challenge others whose actions and policies are constitutionally debatable, adverse to national security or risk people’s lives unnecessarily. And also because journalists, until recently, were at liberty to tenaciously pursue the truth from those elected to represent us. Nevertheless, George W. Bush is unquestionably the marionette president and those pulling his strings have contributed exorbitantly for the honor.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Friday, January 21, 2005
Quaint
Alberto Gonzales was vilified for referring to the Geneva Convention as “Quaint”, and rightfully so. His zeal to play tough guy with prisoners completely ignored the protection this policy insured our own soldiers. However, at the risk of incurring similar wrath, I feel the term is more accurately used in reference to our government.
Our leaders in the executive, legislative and judicial branches have all been reduced in stature due to the ever increasing involvement of corporations in the workings of government. Unlimited access by lobbyists to the halls of Congress, appointment of industry leaders to influential political positions, access to committee members by the industries they are supposed to regulate have all become innocuous. But, beyond the obvious cliché of the fox guarding the hen house, this unholy alliance is robbing the citizenry of its voice.
The officials we elect are our representatives, but we the people have the least access to them once they take office. Politicians do go among the people to campaign, but the issues they champion are the result of market research tailored to elicit the correct response from the targeted demographic. The limited access the public has to a candidate during campaign season has been well orchestrated to prevent any in-depth dialogue of “off message” topics, emphasize “on message” topics and portray the candidate as concerned, involved and a true voice of the constituency.
Once in office they are expected to satisfy those major contributors to their campaigns with favorable appointments or legislation (quid pro quo), entertain an unending procession of special interest lobbyists, attend obligatory fund raising events, endure political peer pressure designed to fashion the new officials as the compliant bureaucrats corporations expect them to be. This leaves precious little time for our representative to act on our behalf. Yet, when they do take action in the form of authoring and promoting the passage of a bill, they are assisted throughout the process by lobbyists representing special interests who stand to benefit from the new law.
Along with this infiltration of government by moneyed corporations comes the logical conclusion that a politician’s greater assets would be malleability over intelligence, myopia over vision, banality over ingenuity, and notably the ability to be marketed to the public via name recognition, a folksy appeal, and being completely corruptible.
Corporations and their executives are not elected by the general public, but due to their excessive influence within government the officials that were elected by the people do not answer to those that elected them. Instead they act in the interests of the corporate donors who financed their campaigns. This defies the entire concept of representative government and effectively renders it Quaint!
How is it possible for corporations to have gained such immense influence over elected officials considering that corporations do not have the vote? The primary method is inducement by means of cash contributions, far in excess of any amount an individual voter could hope to match. Since all politicians require cash to campaign for office it is easy for the corporate benefactor to play candidates against each other. This we see in the platforms of the candidates who attempt to out do each other by promoting ever more “business friendly” legislation. Politicians who want to be seen as important players on any number of policy issues can gain the assistance of corporations who will gladly sponsor an event, host a gathering or fund a junket to the hot spot du jour. Of course, for their assistance the corporate donor will expect a favorable ruling on an issue before the committee chaired by said politician, or some other action he or she has within their power that will directly or implicitly benefit the corporate supporter.
Can this really be a surprise to anyone following the news even with a casual eye? It has become common-place for industry officials to be appointed to prominent political posts, having the potential to effect rulings and regulations that significantly impact their former industry. Often, as soon as a law that they sponsored or promoted gains passage, they leave their appointed position to return to their former position within the private sector, but a position which should be much more lucrative without the pesky regulations that they helped eliminate.
Inasmuch as the corporate bigwigs have involved themselves with the operation of government, the elected official has become less involved with the act of legislation. Even as its spokesperson they are fed sound bites and talking points by those actually engaged in the creation of the bill. For all actual purposes, the elected official no longer represents the people who elected him/her, nor perform the functions of a lawmaker, nor contribute to the workings of government. They have achieved a level of insignificant figure head that corporations will sooner or later do away with for profit considerations.
Our leaders in the executive, legislative and judicial branches have all been reduced in stature due to the ever increasing involvement of corporations in the workings of government. Unlimited access by lobbyists to the halls of Congress, appointment of industry leaders to influential political positions, access to committee members by the industries they are supposed to regulate have all become innocuous. But, beyond the obvious cliché of the fox guarding the hen house, this unholy alliance is robbing the citizenry of its voice.
The officials we elect are our representatives, but we the people have the least access to them once they take office. Politicians do go among the people to campaign, but the issues they champion are the result of market research tailored to elicit the correct response from the targeted demographic. The limited access the public has to a candidate during campaign season has been well orchestrated to prevent any in-depth dialogue of “off message” topics, emphasize “on message” topics and portray the candidate as concerned, involved and a true voice of the constituency.
Once in office they are expected to satisfy those major contributors to their campaigns with favorable appointments or legislation (quid pro quo), entertain an unending procession of special interest lobbyists, attend obligatory fund raising events, endure political peer pressure designed to fashion the new officials as the compliant bureaucrats corporations expect them to be. This leaves precious little time for our representative to act on our behalf. Yet, when they do take action in the form of authoring and promoting the passage of a bill, they are assisted throughout the process by lobbyists representing special interests who stand to benefit from the new law.
Along with this infiltration of government by moneyed corporations comes the logical conclusion that a politician’s greater assets would be malleability over intelligence, myopia over vision, banality over ingenuity, and notably the ability to be marketed to the public via name recognition, a folksy appeal, and being completely corruptible.
Corporations and their executives are not elected by the general public, but due to their excessive influence within government the officials that were elected by the people do not answer to those that elected them. Instead they act in the interests of the corporate donors who financed their campaigns. This defies the entire concept of representative government and effectively renders it Quaint!
How is it possible for corporations to have gained such immense influence over elected officials considering that corporations do not have the vote? The primary method is inducement by means of cash contributions, far in excess of any amount an individual voter could hope to match. Since all politicians require cash to campaign for office it is easy for the corporate benefactor to play candidates against each other. This we see in the platforms of the candidates who attempt to out do each other by promoting ever more “business friendly” legislation. Politicians who want to be seen as important players on any number of policy issues can gain the assistance of corporations who will gladly sponsor an event, host a gathering or fund a junket to the hot spot du jour. Of course, for their assistance the corporate donor will expect a favorable ruling on an issue before the committee chaired by said politician, or some other action he or she has within their power that will directly or implicitly benefit the corporate supporter.
Can this really be a surprise to anyone following the news even with a casual eye? It has become common-place for industry officials to be appointed to prominent political posts, having the potential to effect rulings and regulations that significantly impact their former industry. Often, as soon as a law that they sponsored or promoted gains passage, they leave their appointed position to return to their former position within the private sector, but a position which should be much more lucrative without the pesky regulations that they helped eliminate.
Inasmuch as the corporate bigwigs have involved themselves with the operation of government, the elected official has become less involved with the act of legislation. Even as its spokesperson they are fed sound bites and talking points by those actually engaged in the creation of the bill. For all actual purposes, the elected official no longer represents the people who elected him/her, nor perform the functions of a lawmaker, nor contribute to the workings of government. They have achieved a level of insignificant figure head that corporations will sooner or later do away with for profit considerations.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Progress vs. Congress
It appears that our elected officials are intent on confirming Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Judge Al Gonzales. Does anyone else get the feeling that our course is nearing the point of no return? George Bush and company are forging ahead with even more extra-Constitutional policies that are sure to set back democracy decades if not centuries. The list of this administration's assumed powers continues to grow at an alarming rate, yet congress refuses to rein them in and the news media will not hold anyone accountable for fear they would lose their access. With the confirmation of Al, the torturer, to top man in justice it is a sure bet that no one in the administration will ever be held accountable for any transgression.
The notorious “torture memo” that Gonzales produced confirmed for W what he already assumed. That he can do as he damn well pleases and that he is above the law. Thom Hartmann pointed out in his news-letter that even though there is a provision for exempting the rule of habeas corpus, it is a power only held by congress. W does not have the authority to incarcerate and hold citizens indefinitely, without a trial, or charges, or legal representation, regardless of what Gonzales believes.
The confirmation hearings is the ideal place for the democrats and like minded republicans, if they exist, to put W on notice that his days of uncontested power grabbing are over. Actually, they are going to need the practice for the approaching battle over Social Security Reform (read “elimination”). Allowing Bush and company to forge ahead as they have, without forcing them to fight for each inch of ground, can only embolden them for even greater constitutional infringements.
If we desire to change the direction in which this administration is leading us, as we must, then Congress has to take the responsibility of challenging policies and behaviors that are inconsistent with the constitution. For us to move ahead, Congress can not be the opposite of Progress.
The notorious “torture memo” that Gonzales produced confirmed for W what he already assumed. That he can do as he damn well pleases and that he is above the law. Thom Hartmann pointed out in his news-letter that even though there is a provision for exempting the rule of habeas corpus, it is a power only held by congress. W does not have the authority to incarcerate and hold citizens indefinitely, without a trial, or charges, or legal representation, regardless of what Gonzales believes.
The confirmation hearings is the ideal place for the democrats and like minded republicans, if they exist, to put W on notice that his days of uncontested power grabbing are over. Actually, they are going to need the practice for the approaching battle over Social Security Reform (read “elimination”). Allowing Bush and company to forge ahead as they have, without forcing them to fight for each inch of ground, can only embolden them for even greater constitutional infringements.
If we desire to change the direction in which this administration is leading us, as we must, then Congress has to take the responsibility of challenging policies and behaviors that are inconsistent with the constitution. For us to move ahead, Congress can not be the opposite of Progress.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Neoliberal
Thank you Barbara Boxer
1/10/05 - Barbara Boxer can be very proud of herself for being the only senator with enough courage to stand up against certifying the electoral vote for G.W. Even knowing in advance that the effort would not succeed, at least she elevated the awareness of the issue over the voting irregularities.
This effort alone will not convince those in the Bush camp that he does not have a mandate from his victory. That can only be accomplished through the continuing efforts of those committed to preventing him from further destroying democracy. Rep. Conyers started the ball rolling by conducting his hearings on the Ohio vote, but we all need to support the on-going dissent and contribute to those investigating the irregularities discovered by Rep. Conyers.
If you are like me you are questioning how this president could have possibly won re-election. His first term “accomplishments” are more deserving of impeachment than re-election yet, Karl Rove tells us he inspired the GOP base to come out in force in support of the values championed by the Bush administration. Which may cause you to ask yourself, “Are there really that many people who feel that disregarding or defying the constitution is a good thing”?
It has become abundantly clear that the republicans managed to steal the 2000 election for Bush. Yet, most people do not feel that way about this past election. This is what I can’t understand. The republicans were not in power during the 2000 elections and they still were able to over power democratic attempts to ensure a fair and legal counting of the votes in Florida. Now that they have been in the White House for 4 years and came into the majority in both houses in 2002, no one thinks they had the ability to control the voting process? Please!
My fear is that this will continue to happen unless we are able to eliminate the privatization of the voting process. The only thing about voting that should be secret is the ballot cast by the individual voter. The counting of the votes and any and all technology used in the process must be transparent if we are to ever again trust the results. ~
1/10/05 - Barbara Boxer can be very proud of herself for being the only senator with enough courage to stand up against certifying the electoral vote for G.W. Even knowing in advance that the effort would not succeed, at least she elevated the awareness of the issue over the voting irregularities.
This effort alone will not convince those in the Bush camp that he does not have a mandate from his victory. That can only be accomplished through the continuing efforts of those committed to preventing him from further destroying democracy. Rep. Conyers started the ball rolling by conducting his hearings on the Ohio vote, but we all need to support the on-going dissent and contribute to those investigating the irregularities discovered by Rep. Conyers.
If you are like me you are questioning how this president could have possibly won re-election. His first term “accomplishments” are more deserving of impeachment than re-election yet, Karl Rove tells us he inspired the GOP base to come out in force in support of the values championed by the Bush administration. Which may cause you to ask yourself, “Are there really that many people who feel that disregarding or defying the constitution is a good thing”?
It has become abundantly clear that the republicans managed to steal the 2000 election for Bush. Yet, most people do not feel that way about this past election. This is what I can’t understand. The republicans were not in power during the 2000 elections and they still were able to over power democratic attempts to ensure a fair and legal counting of the votes in Florida. Now that they have been in the White House for 4 years and came into the majority in both houses in 2002, no one thinks they had the ability to control the voting process? Please!
My fear is that this will continue to happen unless we are able to eliminate the privatization of the voting process. The only thing about voting that should be secret is the ballot cast by the individual voter. The counting of the votes and any and all technology used in the process must be transparent if we are to ever again trust the results. ~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
