|
You all remember, of course, the infamous "Axis of Evil" identified in President Chimpy's 2002 State of the Union Address, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. And of course the whole world, except the Republican true believers, now knows that of those three, Iran and North Korea have active and advanced nuclear weapons programs and that Iraq doesn't and didn't, although Saddam did have weapons-of-mass-destruction-related-program-hopes. And of course you all know that because we have committed most of our available military resources to the fight in Iraq we have no realistic means of even hoping to control either Iraq or North Korea. And that because we squandered all of our post 9/11 goodwill by lying to the world about the threat posed by Iraq and then denigrated all nations that wouldn't believe our Iraq lies we no longer have any credibility or standing to recruit other nations to help us out in reining in North Korea and Iran. And yes, you all know that we are farther than ever before from imposing any kind of civil or military order in Iraq and that, although there was precious little terrorist activity emanating from Iraq before our invasion, that nation is now terrorism central.
Knowing all that, don't you wonder how anyone could possibly believe that the invasion of Iraq has made the world, or even just the US safer?
When I was a boy growing up in the Santa Clara Valley, Pete McCloskey was a "moderate Republican" (remember those?) serving in the House of Representatives. A letter from McCloskey supporting Kerry for President was recently published in the San Jose Mercury News. To spare you having to register there, I'm sending you to another blog.
Now, if you're wondering what separates McCloskey, a Republican supporting a Democratic Presidential candidate, from Zell Miller, a Democrat supporting a Republican Presidential candidate, all I can tell you is that McCloskey isn't batshit crazy. Zell Miller clearly is.
Thursday was an interesting day. I received two emails from people and had two conversations with other people about the possibility of the government restoring the military draft. With good reason, I believe, this is a topic that seems to be much on people's minds these days.
On September 15, Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards told a West Virginia mother that under a John Kerry presidency there would be no military draft. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has also gone on record opposing a draft. Nonetheless, we have had selective service registration required of all eighteen-year old males since 1980 and the ongoing war in Iraq has severely depleted those men and women on active duty, in the reserve or guard, or those available to be recalled to active duty. If the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue and the need for fresh troops remains acute, a universal draft will look more attractive to the Pentagon.
Legislation has been pending in Congress (S 89 and HR 163) since 2003 that would, if enacted, re-instate the draft. Both bills have been introduced by Democrats, supposedly acting on the theory that if we had a draft for which all men and women of a certain age were eligible, our President and Congress would be more cautious about committing our troops to the kind of overseas adventures we are currently involved in and have already cost us more than 1000 US deaths and thousands more wounded in Iraq alone. Giving the sponsors of these bills the benefit of the doubt that they truly believe this, this is fools' logic. With the kind of cavalier disregard for the truth displayed by President Bush while leading us into the Iraq war and the cavalier disregard for their responsibility that our Congressmen and women displayed, no sane person would entrust these reality-challenged buffoons with even more of the lives of our precious children.
I have a fifteen-year old daughter, a 17 year-old nephew and a 19 year-old niece. I have a dear friend with a 21-year old daughter. I, my sister, and my friend did not raise our children to see their lives squandered. None of us in this country did, yet we have no reason to believe that given that control over our children's lives, those in power in this country wouldn't squander those lives for selfish political or economic reasons.
The lesson I had reinforced most acutely from the events of 9/11 was that each life is unique, precious, and fragile. A life can be taken in an instant, and all the hopes, struggles, loves, and dreams of that person are gone forever. I cherish every day I walk this earth, all the laughter and smiles I encounter, and all the opportunities I find to touch others. I am far from unique in holding these feelings.
I do not naively believe that all people share this attitude. I recognize that there are those who would take advantage of such an attitude to destroy me and those I love. However, I cannot examine the record of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and all the others over the last three and a half years and trust these people or those working for them to place on the lives of America's young people the value that each deserves, to make every effort that they can and should to ensure that none of these lives will be placed in harm's way needlessly, to display in the future the thoughtful evaluation of the needs, risks, and benefits inherent in any potential armed conflict. They've not done so in the past and they have neither done or said anything to indicate that they recognize, let alone have learned from, the mistakes they have made. They shall not have my child.
Please contact your Senators and your representative in the House of Representatives, and tell them of your opposition to HR163 and S89.
To me, blaming Lewis & Clark for the genocide of the western Native Americans strikes me as being akin to blaming Jesus Christ for the genocide of the Jews during the Crusades.
Interesting interview. Steve Earle is often much farther out there on the left than I have the guts to be, but he's also often dead-on in his analysis of the state of our society and culture.
I found this to be particulary true, "I don't think the country is heading the direction that it is because of 'them;' it's because of 'us.' We went to sleep. Democracy is really hard work, and there will never be a time where we can just coast."
When Kerry wins, we all have to remember this. The work continues.
Want to make a cash donation to help out some Democrats in key races? Click [link=https://www.moveonpac.org/give/04endorsed.html?id=3794-3297455-vfHXJA7n55L4CvuN5FJM2w]here[/link] and drop a few quarters in the drum. We'll all feel better for it.
As was expected, the House of Representatives today passed, by a 247-173 vote the Pledge Protection Act, designed to remove from the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts cases challenging mandatory recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" in it. There are two purposes for this being passed. The first, and most practical, is that idiot Republicans (all but 6 House Republicans voted yea) will now claim that the Democrats don't respect the pledge of allegiance, trying to use this as a wedge in the November election. And, among the idiot portion of the voting public, never a segment to underestimate, I'm sure this will achieve the desired effect. The other purpose, though it's realization remains a long shot, is to actually have this succesfully pass through the Senate and become law some day. That's not too likely to happen, but it is probably desired by those in the country who fear that our nation will crumble if our school children do not mouth empty platitudes to an emasculated generic "god." It must be such a god mentioned in the pledge, else this bill, along with the pledge, is in serious trouble.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Does that look familiar? It's the beginning of the first amendment. If the "god" in the pledge has any meaning, if it refers to a diety that people would actually worship, then the original Cold-War era act of Congress inserting "under God" into the pledge, as well as the Pledge Restoration Act, is a law made by Congress respecting an establishment of religion and is unconstitutional. It's really as simple as that. I think even our current Supreme Court would see that and rule appropriately (unless it gets another chance to duck the issue, as it did in Newdow). If people desire to repeal that part of the First Amendment, and I have no doubt that those most dedicated to retaining "under God" in the pledge desire just that, then that's what we ought to be having a debate about. Let's not nibble at the corners of the First Amendment with this chicken-shit Pledge Protection Act.
Enjoy.
Today the full Senate voted to confirm Porter Goss as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, by a vote of 77-17. Neither Kerry nor Edwards voted and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle voted to confirm. Wow, that's quite an opposition party we've got here.
I noticed that Dianne Feinstein has voted to endorse the nomination of Porter Goss for CIA Director, prompting me to wonder once again (I wish) just why it is that California Democrats continue to elect this woman. She is less bizarre and entertaining than Zell Miller, but no less useless as a Democrat.
I'll admit that she did a nice job of not completely screwing things up when Milk and Moscone were murdered, but what has she done for us in the last twenty-five years (and if she can get that kind of mileage out of that, doesn't it make you wonder just how long Guiliani can millk 9/11?)
|