Liberal Lone Ranger

Republicans and Immigration

2010-11-30T09:56:00.000-06:00

What Congressman Smith and other Republicans propose for dealing with undocumented workers is just stomping on fire ants -- lots of motion but no action. Anyone who has lived in Texas for a summer knows that stomping on fire ants is ineffective, as are the Republican plans for building walls and increased border patrols. The effective solution for fire ants is systematic and tailored to the situation: bait and slow-acting poison. The effective solution for undocumented workers is to eliminate what they very naturally seek: jobs. These jobs, working for illegal employers, will attract undocumented workers over, under, or through the highest wall. Can you imagine building a wall around a fire ant bed? A fool's mission.

How do we systematically eliminate jobs from illegal employers? The way President Obama is quietly and effectively doing it now: send an IRS auditor into the businesses to look for signs of undocumented workers -- low and unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid payroll taxes. One agent can eliminate 50-100 illegal jobs in a day with no confrontations or family disruptions.

God gave us feet and a brain so we can move from barren land to fertile land -- immigration to improve one's lot in life is a natural act. No army can overcome it.

Why have we not heard Congressman Smith supporting the Presidents effective plan?

Since Mr. Smith almost certainly won't answer here, I'll answer for him:

1) The Republicans don't want President Obama to succeed at anything (they have stated this). Such behavior by Congressman Smith, putting party over country, is not the behavior of a statesman leader.

2) Many of the businesses that are illegal employers are run by Republicans. They don't really want to have their businesses audited and the jobs eliminated. "Stomping on the fire ants" helps to keep the undocumented workers scared and submissive -- and easily cheated out of wages.

3) The Republicans seem to like lots of motion. Quiet, effective action isn't so thrilling, but the grand idea of building a wall for protection seems glorious -- as it has to civilization after civilization who forget history. And there's probably a Republican crony who's just waiting for the no-bid contract to build it at taxpayer expense.

Libertarian Utopia

2010-09-25T15:36:00.004-05:00

Last night I dreamt I was in Libertarian Utopia again.

I was going to the local convenience store to get a newspaper. I opened the heavy steel gate we installed at the end of the driveway for protection and drove onto the toll road that goes by our neighborhood. As I approached the toll gate I saw Missy, the toll gate keeper and 15-year-old daughter of the man who owns the toll road. As usual, she carried an Uzi on a strap over her shoulder. I could see the bullet-hole-riddled burned-out carcasses of three cars nearby -- I guess those drivers didn't want to pay and Missy decided to enforce the toll the usual way. I also saw something new this time: despite the Uzi, Missy was wearing a stainless-steel chastity belt with a big lock on it. I had heard about roving bands of former Scouts turning into gang-rapists, but I didn't know they were in our area again. There's no law against it (there's no law against anything in Libertarian Utopia).

I gave Missy the token and headed on. As I drove off, I noticed that Missy went back into the booth and played with her dolls. She doesn't go to school and can't read -- her father figures she'll always have the income from the toll road and won't need to be educated. She'll eventually have babies with someone (there is no marriage here) and pass on the toll road to them.

Seeing I was getting low on tokens, I made a mental note to bring a chicken or two along with me the next time to barter for tokens at the marketplace. A cousin of Missy's runs a token-shop there -- he takes just about anything in trade for toll tokens and Missy's family eats it for dinner. There are no coins or paper money, so everything is done this way.

The road is not in good shape, so I was glad I was driving our SUV. The bridge over the creek had washed out a few months ago, but the toll road owner didn't want to fix it -- he saw nothing to gain from it. Everyone in the neighborhood had to use his road to get to and from their houses anyway. Missy's brothers and male cousins patrol the nearby land to keep people from going any other way in order to not pay the toll. They don't really "own" the land (there is no government to record ownership), but they patrol it regularly and have guns, so they might as well own it.

I got to the market and realized I hadn't brought anything small to barter for the paper, but it turned out not to matter. The paper had written a seething criticism of a local land-baron, and the baron's men had shot up the newspaper office and destroyed the presses. So much for "Freedom of the Press". The newspaper's security guards had been paid off well -- you could see them all driving around town in new cars. Even security is "free market" in Libertarian Utopia.

At this point in the dream I woke up in a sweat. I went outside and brought in the newspaper from the driveway -- on the front page was an article about pirates in Somalia. I thought, "I guess my libertarian friends would like it there -- they haven't had a functioning government in years."

How the Press can prevent another Iraq

2007-02-04T23:47:00.000-06:00

Excellent article by Dan Froomkin:

Lessons we thought had been learned from Vietnam were forgotten in the rush to invade Iraq. And now, as we cover President Bush’s ratcheting up of the rhetoric against Iran, it’s looking like the lessons we should have learned from Iraq may not have been learned at all. So at the risk of stating the obvious, here are some thoughts about what those lessons were.

Public Funds for Private Schools

2006-07-23T23:15:00.000-05:00

Conservatives are all about "private enterprise". Sucking the government tit is not "private enterprise".

Private enterprise is where you take some of your own money or the money of investors and put it at risk to build a business. You work to make your product or service offering better than your competitors' offerings so that customers will spend their own hard-earned dollars with your business. I strongly support this.

Voucher supporters like to fool themselves into believing that market incentives that exist in private enterprise also apply to taxpayer funded business, but that couldn't be further from the truth. The incentives for a voucher supported school will be #1: get the students in with whatever glitz it takes. #2: spend as little money on them as possible. We've seen these in action with some charter schools already. Perhaps incentive #3 is to skip town with the profits.

Electing politicians who will route taxpayer dollars your way is not private enterprise. Often it's just corruption. You only have to look at defense and highway contractors to understand what happens when government money is floating around: $800 hammers, $1000 toilets, cost overruns, lined pockets, and Aspen vacation homes for the owners. Can you imagine the opportunities for corruption when each student brings in $4000 and there's no accountability to the laws and codes that apply to public schools?

Bush knew

2006-03-30T14:35:00.000-06:00

I knew he new. I'd read the released October 2002 NIE myself. Now we know Bush knew.

lie, n. 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Saving Face for Bush

2005-11-19T17:21:00.000-06:00

What do y'all think about my new idea for a bumper sticker:

"How many more corporals have to die to save face for Bush?"

I heard a snippet from an interview with a Vietnam Vet this afternoon on All Things Considered. He was taking the position that any call for troop withdrawal gives hope to the enemy, and the situation will end up like Vietnam, where a million Vietnamese people were killed after we pulled out. He can't remember the reason we were in Vietnam, but says the Iraq war is different and he doesn't want the 2075-and-counting deaths to "be in vain".
So I started thinking about it and realized that whatever our reasons for entering the Iraq War were, the current troop placement is really just about saving face for Bush.
How many more Specialist Casey Sheehan's have to die to save face for Bush?
How many more Lance Corporal Scott A. Zubowski's does it take?
How many more Staff Sergeant Jason A. Fegler's does it take?

The Truth vs. What Bush says

2005-11-17T12:49:00.000-06:00

Clear enough.

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials

2005-11-15T10:28:00.000-06:00

What do we know?
There were no WMDs in Iraq before the war. They weren't moved out or hidden, either. (2004 Report of the Iraq Survey Group).
The Bush Administration said there were. See the long list of quotes in my previous post.
Bush had intelligence that said there was little evidence of nuclear weapons development in Iraq. The National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002 was released (in part) by the Bush Administration after the full occupation had found no evidence of WMDs. A note in the NIE from the State Department's INR said there was little evidence of nuclear development in Iraq and that the intelligence other agencies were using was known to be bogus.
The Bush Administration pressured intelligence agents to change their reports on WMDs. We had testimony before Congress during the Bolton confirmation hearings that John Bolton had tried to transfer or dismiss an agent who wouldn't change his report on Cuban WMDs to suit the Administration's position. We also know that Cheney had unprecidented meetings with the CIA. His meer presence amounts to pressure.
Contrary to what Bush says, Congress didn't have access to the intelligence that the Bush Administration did. In the first year of the administration, they had the CIA change the rules as to who in Congress was cleared to receive secret reports, limiting this priviledge to eight leaders. Given that ALL intelligence is collected and analyzed by the Exectutive Branch before going to Congress, the information Congress received was easily shaped to fit whatever message the Bush Administration wanted them to see.
The Bush Adminstration acted to stamp-out any and all opposition to their claims of Iraq WMDs. Valerie Plame was one victim. We know Libby and Rove were directly involved, and it's starting to look like Cheney, Rice, and Hadley had knowledge of the attack. When it takes so much effort to keep a story up, the story is probably a lie.

Lamar Smith's speech on Judicial Activism

2005-04-08T18:26:00.000-05:00

Congressman Lamar Smith : 21st District of Texas: Did Lamar Smith fail U.S. History and Government in school?

Certainly he would have been taught that one of the primary reasons people immigrated to these lands was to escape the established government religions of the day! And certainly he would have studied Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that gives our courts the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws. And certainly at least one of his teachers would have pointed out that the Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals -- especially those in the minority -- from the power of the majority who control the government. Maybe Mr. Smith was on a trip with Tom DeLay when his classes covered these topics.

The school administrators who instituted these anti-religious policies inevitably cite the “separation of church and state” as if it were a Constitutional phrase. It is not. The phrase appeared in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, assuring them that Congress would not establish a Federal religion.

It the phrase "Holy Trinity" in the Bible? No, but certainly Mr. Smith would acknowledge that the concept is there. The phrase is used as a commonly understood abbreviation, as "the separation of church and state" is used to abbreviate the First Amendment and supporting rulings made by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Smith apparently doesn't understand what Baptists have understood since before Thomas Jefferson's letter to Connecticut -- it is wrong for the power of the government, in any form, at any level, to be used to force a religious view on the people. One only has to apply the "walk a mile in another's shoes" test to see the problem: What if all of the teachers in a San Antonio public school were Muslim and had the authority to require students to pray to Allah five times a day? What if Hindus became the majority in Congress and changed the Pledge of Allegiance to be "under Vishnu"?

Mr Smith says, "The purpose of the First Amendment was to rule out the establishment of a particular religion and to prohibit the government from discriminating against one religion by favoring another. It was never intended to mandate that government ban religious expressions."

I say that in addition it requires that no government authority can be used to force any religion of any kind on the people and that no power to tax can be used to support religion.

Rulings by our courts have been intended only to ban religious expressions by government agents or with government backing. A teacher in a public school is a tax-supported government agent with authority and power over students. Any expression of religion by a public school teacher while "on duty" is a violation to the rights of the students present to be free of coercion in this way.

Fortunately, our courts have "activist" judges who will protect the minority from the majority.

The Poor Man: Compare and Contrast

2005-01-12T19:50:00.000-06:00

The Poor Man: Compare and Contrast The only head that rolled in Bush's administration just had a Medal of Freedom wrapped around its neck.

Proverbs 6:16

2004-12-13T15:28:00.000-06:00

These six the LORD hates; yea, seven are hateful to his soul: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that plots wicked plans, feet hurrying to run to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and he who causes fighting among brothers.
Bush is seven-for-seven:

The Bible says the LORD hates	Bush
a proud look	some even call it a swagger
a lying tongue	WMD in Iraq
hands that shed innocent blood	In the unjustified war: thousands of Iraqis, maybe even 100,000
a heart that plots wicked plans	planning to invade Iraq in response to 9/11
feet hurrying to run to evil	the rush to war in Iraq, poorly planned, costing lives on both sides
a false witness who speaks lies	WMD in Iraq, Iraq involvement in 9/11, Iraq a threat to U.S.
he who causes fighting among brothers	the U.S. is more divided after four years of Bush. Our long-time allies now hate us and don't support us.

Why did Bush lie?

2004-10-23T16:31:00.000-05:00

Every time Bush is confronted with a question about missing WMDs, he dodges the question by saying that the war was the right thing to do and that if his opponent was president Saddam would still be in power. Clearly, Bush lied to us about Iraq having WMDs and Iraq being a threat to the U.S. The Oct 2002 NIE tells us he knew it wasn't certain; the ISG report tells us it wasn't true. Together, they make Bush's statements and those of his people into lies:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -Dick Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002.
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -George W. Bush Speech to U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002.
"We know they have weapons of mass destruction … There isn't any debate about it." "[It is] beyond anyone's imagination" that U.N. inspectors would fail to find such weapons if they were given the opportunity. -Donald Rumsfeld, September 2002.
"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Dec. 2, 2002.
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing, Jan. 9, 2003.
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." -Colin Powell Remarks to U.N. Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003.
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." -George W. Bush Radio Address, Feb. 8, 2003.
“Does Saddam now have weapons of mass destruction? Sure he does. We know he has chemical weapons. We know he has biological weapons. ... How far he’s gone on the nuclear-weapons side I don’t think we really know. My guess is it’s further than we think. It’s always further than we think, because we limit ourselves, as we think about this, to what we’re able to prove and demonstrate. ... And, unless you believe that we have uncovered everything, you have to assume there is more than we’re able to report.” -Defense Policy Board Chair, Richard Perle, speaking to a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing, March, 2003.
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -George W. Bush Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003.
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." -Ari Fleisher Press Briefing, March 21, 2003.
"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And... as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." -Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference, March 22, 2003.
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview, March 30, 2003.
"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now." -Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003.

What I want to know is if having Saddam out of power is so good, then why didn't Bush say that was the reason for going to war? Why make up a story about WMDs? Wolfowitz told us they evaluated the various reasons and decided to go with WMDs because they could sell that. This just reinforces the fact that the lying was intentional.

My problem with Bush is the lying

2004-10-20T21:05:00.000-05:00

Yes, Bush and Cheney were caught sitting on their hands on 9/11, having lowered the priority of anti-terrorism actions to the point that they never had a meeting with Richard Clarke, the administration's top person on terrorism. B & C were working on a missile defense system for the first 9 months of 2001, if I recall.

My biggest problem with Bush is the lying. Bush lied to gain political support for a war that wouldn't have been supported if the truth were told. We've read excerpts from the Oct 2002 NIE that says there was plenty of opposition within the intelligence community to the idea that Iraq had WMDs, yet Bush and company used absolute phrases in their speeches: "There can be no doubt ... We know for a fact ... It is certain ...", where the truth wouldn't have been persuasive.

Bush and his administration made statements they knew were false in order to gain political and popular support for a war that has taken the lives of over 1000 American soldiers and countless 1000s of Iraqis. Now with the publication of the ISG report, we know for certain that the statements were false. With the publication of parts of the NIE, we know they knew the statements were false at the time.

The same situation applies to Bush's other reasons for prosecuting the war: Iraq involvement in 9/11 -- false; Iraq threat to U.S. -- false; invasion of Iraq justified on human rights grounds -- false. (see Human Rights Watch for the justification for a war on human rights grounds). They're batting 0 for 4.

For those who may think this is a lesser problem than some others, consider the 9th Commandment in the Old Testament: "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor".

About half of the voters didn't believe Bush's lies. The other half did. Now anyone with open eyes and ears knows they've been the victim of lies. President Bush has broken the trust of the American people. Because of this, he can no longer serve effectively. Witness the cries of "wag the dog" after the mid-summer orange alerts when Kerry was ahead in the polls. He's now "the little boy who cried wolf". We can't trust our President to tell us the truth, even when he is.

Real Intelligence - Smarter spies only get us so far. We need smarter strategy.

2004-10-08T18:28:00.000-05:00

American Prospect Online - ViewWeb Makes me want to buy the guy's book.

ABCNEWS.com : Report: Saddam Not in Pursuit of Weapons

2004-10-06T12:43:00.000-05:00

ABCNEWS.com : Report: Saddam Not in Pursuit of Weapons More evidence that the Bush administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq were false. Sanctions and inspections were working! We had the choice: stay the course with working sanctions and inspections or invade at the cost of over 1000 American lives. Maybe some sabre-rattling was necessary to get the inspectors back in, but this new final report makes it clear that no invasion was necessary to keep Americans safe.

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins

2004-09-08T12:31:00.000-05:00

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins This is coming from the "brains" of the outfit that was caught sitting on their hands on 9/11/2001! The only security effort that got any attention before then was the anti-ballistic missile system. They put off meetings on terrorism -- read Richard Clarke's book!

Blow it off with a joke

2004-09-07T19:04:00.000-05:00

Like clockwork, Bush always blows off any serious questions with some kind of a joke. Remember his "Those Weapons of Mass Destruction have got to be somewhere!" joke at the fundraiser? Just watch: if it's not a joke, then he uses a classic "strawman" logical fallacy -- mischaracterizing his opponent's position and then attacking that mischaracterization.

Who Died and Made You President?

2004-09-07T19:00:00.000-05:00

Who Died and Made You President? :: The Bean :: Aux armes citoyens Gives a better perspective on the chickhawks. What a way to mark the day the number of American dead in Iraq goes over 1000.

My country right or wrong

2004-09-03T10:32:00.000-05:00

My initial reaction to Bush's "Farewell Address" last night at the RNC was to find this quote and ask what Bush has done to set this country right?

My country right or wrong; when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right. Carl Schurz Address to Congress, 1872.

20-20 Hindsight

2004-09-01T15:55:00.000-05:00

As citizens, it's our duty to compare the candidates for the upcoming Presidential election. Fortunately, we don't have to listen to what the incumbent says he plans to do in the future -- we have 20-20 hindsight -- so all we need to do is compare what he said he would do to what actually happened.

Yahoo! News - Rove: Kerry Tarnished Vietnam Veterans

2004-09-01T12:56:00.000-05:00

Yahoo! News - Rove: Kerry Tarnished Vietnam Veterans Hah! The truth can't tarnish anything! Kerry's testimony in the 70's is self-descriptive: it is a summary of what other Vietnam Vets said in another venue. He was the able-minded messenger. As to 527's being a billionaires' club: MoveOn is supported by millions of members each giving small amounts of money; ACT is supported by Soros, but is not going ads, just GOTV actions.

Media on Presidential Election Issues

2004-08-31T23:45:00.000-05:00

I challenge the print media to reserve one daily issue a week with stories that talk about the issues -- nothing else. No "He says; she says", no smears of one by the other, no horse-race info. Just a clear presentation of the issues. And they can get their best analysts to go over all the implications. How about a story on Bush's plan to privatize Social Security and an analysis by Paul Krugman and some other economists? They should assume an educated readership!

USATODAY.com - The GOP doesn't reflect America

2004-08-31T11:52:00.000-05:00

USATODAY.com - The GOP doesn't reflect America Michael Moore provides interesting real-time support for my attitude: right-wing conservatism is pure, unadulterated greed. Perhaps with a little selfishness thrown in. It's amazing how people change their tune when faced with something that affects them: Nancy Reagan on stem-cell research; Cheney on gay marriage. I'd think that Bush might have a different attitude about starting unnecessary wars if Jenna and Barbara were in the National Guard.

Proud Native Texan Democrat

2004-08-30T22:02:00.000-05:00

While watching President Clinton speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I became obsessed with the idea of making a bumper sticker in response. Cafe Press makes it so easy:

Proud Native Texan Democrat

First Post

2004-08-30T21:36:00.000-05:00

It's all politics. Bush started a war under false pretenses. Why would anyone vote to keep him in office after that? Is anything more important than having a leader you can trust? All of the other issues pale against this one.