Apologizing for Bush and Cheney

For the past few years I’ve been wondering what could possibly be going through the minds of Bush and Cheney to make them do the things they’ve done. At first I thought it was just stupidity. There are jokes about Cheney’s heart condition being that he lacks one but that didn’t seem explanation enough. Then I came to believe they were both truly evil, in the purest sense of the word.

But as a writer, I know that villains never think of themselves as villains. The “evil genius” thinks of him or herself simply as “a genius.”

So with this in mind, what’s going through Bush and Cheney’s minds (I’m assuming they both have one, even though that fact is in doubt).

How do they sleep at night? The answer is simple, they sleep because they think what they are doing is right. They also think that pretty much everyone else on the planet is wrong.

In short: Bush has lead such a rich, sheltered life that he can’t relate to normal people and their everyday issues, even things as simple as making money and paying bills. Cheney believes that Corporations are the only true democracy (one vote per share of stock), and they should run everything because they’re so much more efficient than government. Corporations are easily accountable, when they make money they are successful. Period. Money is the bottom line because it’s the only true signifier of success.

"The rich are different from you and me." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

"Yes, they have more money." -- Ernest Hemingway

Baby Bush

Let me start with W. first. He suffers from something that’s common among the very, very rich and privileged. This means it’s extremely uncommon in the real world. And right there you have the explanation. His entire life has been so removed from the reality of the lives of 99.99999% of normal people that he simply can’t relate to them.

Just the way you and I can’t relate to a mass murderer, a mass murder can’t relate to us. But it’s even more basic than that—Bush has never had to get a job for himself, he’s never had to actually work and be productive to keep a job. He’s never had to worry about money, wonder if he has enough or how he can make more. He’s never had to balance a checkbook, pay a bill or ask himself, “How can I afford that?” With anything. Ever.

When I was growing up I had a friend who was the son of an immensely wealthy man, a man so wealthy he owned famous places I thought were public buildings. And so my friend, Bernard, had grown up with everything done for him. He wasn’t stupid, but he had almost no common sense, because he didn’t need it. Other people took care of him.

My favorite example of this was one time he invited me over to his father’s house. It was summer and very hot. All the doors and windows of the house were open, and the three industrial size air conditioning units were working overtime to keep the house cool—and make sure cool air was blasting through the doors in case you were by the pool and needed a cool breeze.

In trying to be a normal host to a visiting friend, he went into the kitchen, opened the refrigerator and offered me a basket of red berries completely covered in a greenish mold. I said, “Um, those are moldy.” He replied, “No, it’s frost.”

He didn’t know what mold looked like, because he’d probably never seen it before.

And this is how George Bush is about just about everything. He doesn’t know what it’s like. So he can’t understand anyone not being super-rich the same way he can’t understand someone speaking Martian. He can’t even comprehend it. He can’t sympathize or empathize because it’s not within the realm of his experience, much less his imagination.

Everyone he knows is rich. Everyone he knows is in business. So if he does what’s good for the people he knows, understand and relates to, he is doing good. Period. No one else really exists.

A prime example of his inability to even see other people as people was when he was running for president and he appeared on the David Letterman show. During the commercial, the show’s producer came up to the desk, as she often does, to talk to Letterman.

While she was leaned over talking to Letterman, George W. Bush grabbed the bottom of this woman’s jacket and cleaned his eyeglasses on them. That’s right, he used her clothing like a Kleenex.

Basically, he had no respect for her as a person. He had no regard for her property. It was there, he needed it, he used it, just as it should be in his little world.

Magnify this on a global scale and you can understand his action. Kill thousands of people? Spend billions of dollars? That’s OK, he needed to do it. And he was just killing bad guys anyway, right? “SADDAM TRIED TO HURT MY DADDY!” Bush said publicly. Well, then we all understand how you could take the entire resources of the United States of America, disregard the UN and other nations, ignore over 50% of the citizens of the country, let over 1,000 Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqi’s be killed. Of course we do.

Bush is doing what’s best for himself, because what’s best for himself is best for himself. And that’s all he’s ever known. And look at how well he’s doing? He must, then, be right. And if he’s right, then everything he does is right. It’s really very simple.

Cheney—it’s just business

Cheney didn’t grow up rich. His father was a “soil conservation agent” for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He lived close to the land and saw its potential for use (or exploitation). He learned about geology, which lead him to learn about all the oil under the land. And he was off.

What Cheney soon learned was that land is money, and money is power. Cheney was successful in the corporate world because money was all that mattered to him. That’s how you got power, and without power, you were nobody.

And there’s the key to Cheney. In his word, the business world, money is power, and power is all that matters.

The way he sees it, Corporate America is America. It drives the economy, so it is America, and it’s what matters. It’s the “engine of democracy” and in his mind, stockholders voting for corporate boards are the only democracy that matter.

Corporate boards are elected, and stockholders get one vote for each share. Notice it’s not “one person, one vote,” as it is in the country, but “one share, one vote,” which is, in Cheney’s mind, how it should be. Why? Because you get as much say as you can afford.

In his mind, if you have money, you have influence, and if you have influence you are an important member of society. If you don’t have enough money to buy your power and your vote, then what good are you, really? You’re just one of those necessary people who carry things. You aren’t a mover or shaker. You are a person of no importance—and he can prove it, because if you were important, you could buy your vote.

While in his mind it’s not so cold and clinical, and he might even be able to relate to the fact that other people have families and lives (especially if they are stockholding families), that’s the underlying thought.

And this leads to his other major viewpoint—that you make it on the Board of Directors because you are smarter than everybody else. You can prove this because you have more money, more stock, and more power. You must be smarter, or you wouldn’t have those things.

Cheney believes he’s so smart he should simply rule the world. And while that seems insane to us, he has his logic. First, the world is a screwed up place. Even little people who carry things can agree to that.

All kinds of governments have had thousands of years to straighten it out and they never have. Democracy has tried for over 250 years and failed. The world is still a mess. The country is a mess.

Part of the problem is that there are too many opinions, too many voices, too many people trying to make decisions. This leads to arguments when there should be action. A dictator can get things done fast. You don’t have to put up with, much less listen to opposition. Things get done.

This is how it is in Corporate America—he who owns the most stock makes the final decision (unless other people can get together and pool their stock and vote you out—see, democracy in action!)

What’s more, Corporations are more efficient than the government. They have to be, because they have to show a profit. The government doesn’t make a profit. So how can you ever tell if Government is working successfully? How can you correctly gauge that success without profit, the only true indicator?

If a corporation fails, they were doing something wrong, and they are replaced by another Corporation which can try to do it right, and prove they’ve done it right by making a profit. Corporations treat people as well as it’s profitable to treat them, and if people want to be treated better they need to buy stock in the company, band together, and have enough shares to make decisions. That’s democracy.

Cheney is so much smarter than we are, even so much smarter than the Founding Fathers of the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin were smart, for their time, but it just doesn’t work now because now we have Corporations to run things for us, and it’s so much more efficient—you gotta move with the times.

“Democracy moves too slowly...”

Condi actually said that as one excuse for why they didn’t do more. It was a clear view into the underlying “logic” of the Cheney administration.

Democracy does move more slowly than a dictatorship, and with good reason. But the Cheney Gang don’t see it as a good thing, they see it as a detriment, a failing, and something they must overcome by overcoming democracy.

So now Cheney’s true mission is to rid us of the terrible overhead that is democracy and move us directly into a corporate fascist state—oh, wait, we’re already there! See what a success Cheney is!

Cheney knows a better way than democracy. Wasting all that time with representatives like Congresspeople and Senators, much less actual citizens who, as I’ve said before, mostly don’t own stock, so they just didn’t care enough to be buy stock and vote and be involved.

In his mind, Cheney is the John Adams of the 21^st century. He sees a better way. He must be a radical, as our founding fathers were. He is going to lead us into the future with him in charge, because, after all, he’s smarter. We are lucky to have him in power.

Aren't we? If you don't think we are, then you must just be ungrateful. It's your fault. And your responsibility--that's right, Bush and Cheney like to tell us all that we have many responsibilities as citizens. But they seem oblivious to responsibility themselves..

And while it makes sense that Bush doesn't understand the concept of responsibility, Cheney's corporate background should make him sensitive to responsibility, and yet he's still oblivious of it. That's something I can't find any logic for, no matter how twisted.

But don't forget--we are lucky to have them ruling us. We didn't really want all the mess and bother of democracy, did we? Isn't it easier just to turn it over to people who are smarter, or at least richer than we are? That is, of course, what Bush and Cheney want you to believe. Do you?

Even Bush's shoulders lie...

Watching video from the most recent debate, I was of course looking to see if Bush had the odd bump in his back that was so obvious in the first debate even TV news this weekend was
carrying it. No bump this time (Was that a transmitter in his pocket or was he just happy to see Kerry?).

What WAS odd was the appearance of massive shoulder pads. All suits have padded shoulders, but seeing him from the back, you could see how large these were--they were wide and also ran down down his side (to make his torso look wider and make the whole thing more proportional).

Bush looked puny next to Kerry in the first debate, so this time they padded him up (unless it's a new kind of bullet-proof shoulder protection :)

The Bush camp's excuse for the first debate's back-lump/transmitter? "It was a tailoring problem." Really? He uses the most expensive, exclusive master tailor in New York, Georges de Paris, (who has made suits for every president since Johnson). A quick gaggle of Googling reveals Mr. de Paris stating (well before this event) that he had a special affinity for Reagan and both Bush presidents, but he didn't care for Carter or Clinton. Doesn't sound partisan at all...

It's not credible that his highly paid, highly skilled tailor would install such big, obvious and poorly integrated shoulder pads. Then again, the campaign was so worried they got Mr. de Paris to say it was a bad seam. Yes, they got the French tailor to take the blame! Hardly good for his business don't you think? If he's going to admit he's that sloppy, then maybe he did install these bad shoulder pads.

But now we know, even Bush's shoulders lie!

Experience - Bush had NONE

The Republicans are lying yet again, trying to make you believe that Kerry doesn't have enough experience to be president or that Edwards isn't qualified to be VP or take over the presidency.

Well, Mr. Bush says he wants to run on his record, so let's look at his record before he took office:

• Bush had never held a national office.
• Bush had no experience with foreign policy of any kind.
• Bush had no experience with national security.
• Bush had never even been outside the United States! (other than just south of the Texas border to Mexico)

In other words, Bush was grossly unqualified to take any national office, much less the presidency.

And his lack of experience has been painfully obvious in his actions.

• Bush has been unable to work with international leaders. As big and strong as the US is, we cannot do everything in the world all by ourselves. As we can see in Iraq alone, our military and national budget are both stretched to their limits. Had Bush built a true coalition, as his own father did in the first Gulf war, our military and deficit would not be out of control.
• Bush has been dishonest. Lying about weapons of mass destruction got us into that war, but there was no real plan to get us out.
• Bush has been unrealistic. He thought the Iraqi's would welcome us with open arms, then lie down and let us tell them how to run their own country. If another country attacked and occupied the US, our citizens wouldn't act that way--we'd fight for the right to control our own destiny. Why did they not even consider that the Iraqi's would do the same thing we would do?
  
• Bush hasn't planned. His unprovoked attack of Iraq was unnecessary--but worse, unplanned. Our military gets there, ill-equipped for the situation--with no plans for sand storms. This is the desert, the same desert Bush's father lead a war in just over a decade earlier--and no one seemed to remember there was sand?
• Bush hasn't considered consequences. When you're confronted with a rabid dog, you don't kick it in the balls, thinking this will protect you. All that does is anger the dog and cause it to lose any reason and attack you mercilessly. And that's what we've done to the Arab world, we've kicked them in the balls. That doesn't stop them, that just makes them mad. That just makes it easier for them to recruit more terrorists.
  
• Bush has made our country, and the world more dangerous. Though a combination of inexperience, ineptitude, dishonesty and stubbornness, Bush has done the exact opposite of what he said he wanted to do--he has made the world more dangerous. Rather than having most of the world united in the fight against terrorism, he has made the US into an isolated target. We are proving that we cannot fight it alone. We need the entire world on our side. But Bush has no understanding of international relations, because he had no experience in international relations.

So don't buy the lie. Kerry and Edwards have more experience than Bush did.

And Cheney? His experience is all about corporations, money and war--and we can see the direct result of that now. We're in an unnecessary war. Much of our money is being funneled directly to Cheney's Halliburton (which, in turns, avoids paying US taxes by having illegal offshore operations--operations proven by CBS's 60 minutes). Cheney sees the US as a corporation and himself as the chairman of the board. Yet he's forgotten the basics--things like moral responsibility, fiscal responsibility, and the possibility stockholder revolt throwing him off the board.

We need to throw Bush and Cheney off the board, out of office, and out of power. We need to return power to the people, a statement that's only radical in the way Washington, Jefferson and Adams were radical. We need to take back America, and bring back democracy--while we still have the chance.

Cheney killed in terrorist attack on LA

YOU READ IT HERE FIRST:

Two weeks before the election, the Bush backers will clandestinely launch their own pre-emptive terrorist attack on some city in California (they'd prefer San Francisco, but it may be LAbecause they don’t care if they destroy Democratic California, serves us right and a quake would get us eventually anyway, right?).

This is designed to create multiple results at once

1. Instill fear in everyone
2. Make it seem unpatriotic not to rally behind our President and "fearless leader."
3. Kill VP Cheney so he can be replaced with a more likeable person, perhaps John McCain.
4. This will also create a sympathy vote

The problem with the plan is that another terrorist attack inside the US will now be considered Bush's fault. Not the CIA's. Not the FBI's. But Bush, and his Homeland Insecurity team. If they couldn't prevent this, then why should we trust them to keep us safe?

The other problem is that after a while, people stop being afraid and start being annoyed and angry. You see this with earthquakes. The first quake petrifies people. Your most basic instincts come into play. It's life or death.

And then there are the aftershocks. Sometimes several a day. And you stop being scared and start being pissed. "OK, enough of this shit already."

And this is what happens with terrorism, too. It's happened in England after years of the IRA. It happens in Israel and other areas plagued with terrorism. People stop being afraid because you can only be afraid for so long. It drags you down, sucks all your energy, and undermines your life.

So if anyone from the Bush organization is reading this (they probably are since it has the words "Kill and Cheney" but I am not advocating any kind of violence, I am predicting that administration operatives are), just know that the plan won't work. You will only piss people off and they will vote for Kerry--someone with experience, someone who actually can work towards keeping America safe.

So my advice to you operatives is to drop this pointless plan. We already know about it. And it's not going to work.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Hacking Electronic Votes--FOR GOOD

Afraid there won't be a fair election, because electronic voting machines will be hacked? There's hope...

Programmers tend to be more educated and more progressive, which means that Democrats and other progressives could turn out to be the ones hacking voting computers--with votes for Kerry.

It's the opposite of what most people feared--but it is what the Republicans fear--they just haven't talked about it because they don't want to give anybody ideas.

I'm not condoning vote hacking--I think it's wrong no matter who does it or what it's for. It goes against the idea of "one person, one vote" which is central to voting and democracy.

But the idea of progressive hackers making sure regressive hackers aren't tampering for Bush is something we can hope is a reality.

Now--these electronic voting machines are, in principal, a good idea. But they're poorly and insecurely executed, and they have no paper trail. Here's some background:

Electronic touch-screen voting machines are just computers. As you sit at your computer and read this, just remember how much trouble you have with your own computer. How often it refuses to do what you want, or freezes, crashes or loses your data.

Now, imagine trusting the future of your country to a lot of unlireable machines. And--remember that these voting computers are newer, they're the V 1.0 of voting computers, so imagine how many bugs they still have.

In fact, many groups have pointed out the bugs in these systems--not the least of which that they are insecure, easily hacked, and that they have no paper trail. That's like putting your most precious data on your computer with no backup copy and no printout. Not very smart.

And to make it dumber, these machines and the servers they work with have backdoors that allow them to be accessed--and maniplated, by people outside the election office. There are already clear cases of this kind of remote vote tampering taking place.

And they lack paper trails. Simple receipts that show you how you voted, and provide a tangible paper trail that's impossible to "hack." The companies that make these voting machines make other machines, ATMs, machines at colleges that let you pay for your lunch, credit card machines. Every single machine these companies make create a receipt--except the voting machines! That's right, if you go in and spend 59 cents for coffee in a cafeteria, they can give you a receipt, but your priceless vote somehow isn't valuable enough to merit one.

So while progressives fear that electronic voting machines won't accurately tally the votes, there's hope that progressive hackers will make sure they do.

For more information about electronic voting machine issues:

Black Box Voting The definitive site about electronic voting machines and their flaws

Verified Voting Championing reliable and verifiable elections

What kind of example has Bush set for the youth of this country?

I'd like to ask Mr. Bush "What kind of message do you think it sends to the youth of this country (the same youth you're sending to die) when you, the president, cheat to take office, lie to us to start a war, and steal from us to pay for it?"

Or when you cut back funding for education? (Of course, we know education was never important to you).

Or when you cut 30% from the funding of children's hospitals?

Or when you hire a coal industry executive to head the department of the interior, so he can give away national treasures to energy companies for their profit?

Or when you take from the poor and give to the rich?

Or when your VP thinks it's funny to tell another senator to go "fuck yourself" (if the VP can say it, certainly it has to be OK for me to write it, and for kids to read it, right?

Your administration has set one horrific example after another for the youth of our country. If you believe in "trickle down economics," then you must also believe in "trickle down morality." If that's the case, as your VP says, we're all "fucked."

Towards a polar society & civil war

We seem to be living in a time of extremes. Not just “extreme sports” and “extreme makeovers” and even toothpaste that claims to give you “extreme clean.” But in a time when opinions, options and actions have all become extreme.

Four years ago we had a presidential election that was split, almost 50/50. While the popular vote was half a million votes apart (with the loser becoming president), that’s still a tiny percentage difference between these two groups. Traditionally elections are not this close. And the same pattern has been repeating in elections around the world.

This year the highest grossing movie is a right-wing revisionist history about the Passion of Christ, while the best selling book, the DaVinci Code, is a polar opposite revisionist history. Both are wildly popular yet their messages are diametrically opposed.

What’s going on?

The universe is constantly trying to remain in balance. “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

There are always extreme fringe factions—a small minority with the strongest opinions, and usually the most closed minds. Whether on the left or right, they are all radicals in their own way. They all think the system isn’t just broken, it needs replacement.

In the past, most people were near the center—they could lean to the right or left, depending on the circumstances.

But now the fringe factions are center stage. The smallest, loudest, most closed-minded groups have taken power. It started on the “right” with the so-called conservatives who are about as conservative as Karl Marx.

While the radical right loves to use the word “liberal” as if it was a four-letter-word, they are rampantly liberal in terms of the changes they are making to the very core of American Democracy. They are not just challenging, but dismantling over 200 years of Democracy. They aren’t merely liberal with democracy, they are libertine.

In reality, the “extreme right wing” are total radicals who don’t believe democracy works. They are working towards a fascist dictatorship model. Even current members of the administration publicly says (and this is a quote from the White House), “Democracy moves too slowly.”

And so, for the universe to counter this growing force, the extreme left-wing, traditionally known as “radicals” is now having to take on the role of conservatives. These so-called radicals are fighting for such radical ideas as freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, personal freedom and fiscal responsibility.

The current “left-wing radicals” are, in fact, fighting for the exact same things as our founding fathers. In their own time, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin—they were all radicals, proponents of freedom and representation.

The agenda of the right-wing is radical. This, then, forces the left-ring to react in a radical way to try to stop them—with a conservative goal of preserving democracy and freedom.

While these two “radical” groups are still comparatively small, as their pull grows stronger, it exerts force on the majority of people in the center--pulling them out of the center and towards the edges. It becomes more difficult to sway left or right, when each extreme is so convinced of their point and so closed to the other opinion that there is no room for compromise.

Franklin once said that compromise was the heart of democracy

One of Franklin’s biggest contributions to the convention was his sense of compromise. If delegates decided to be unwavering on every important issue, the constitution could never have been formed. It is only through the compromises of all parties involved that the system of government which has thrived for over 200 years came into being. Franklin compared compromise to a skilled carpenter when he brought up this illustration:

“When a broad table is to be made and the edges of planks do not fit, the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint. In like manner here both sides must part with some of their demands, in order that they may join in some accommodating proposition” (Bowen 130).

Yet the radical right has continually set a “no-compromises” tone on every thing they do. It’s their agenda or else. IT doesn’t matter if the issue is large or small, because they are in the majority in the house, senate and control the white house, they allow for no representation from the left.

This puts everything out of balance, and it staggered on this way for several years, until the left finally realized that trying to compromise with the right left them with nothing but compromises, that the right was never giving them even a crust, and that conservative government was starving to death.

And so, with stronger forces at the polls, the center, which can normally adjust to the times, feels more pressure to move away from the center, to the fringes. Once again this puts things even more off balance, and as the radical right moves away from democracy, the conservative-left must counter balance by fighting harder for democracy.

But this polarization is dangerous. It leaves less and less room for debate and compromise. It makes every issue contentious. It forces people to “take sides” politically, rather than based on issues. And, in the end, it closes more minds, which only serves to prolong this vicious cycle.

All this can only end when the side that’s pulling the hardest, in this case the radical right, admits that there are other opinions, other solutions—basically other people in the world besides themselves. When they let up, the equal and opposite reaction is that the left can let up.

You say, “Why doesn’t the left just let up, and then the right will?” The answer is because the left is only pulling so hard as a reaction to the right. If the left lets up, the right, which continues its “no compromise” position, will pull things tragically off-balance.

The right started it, and they will finish it, one way or another. Either they will ease up and allow for compromise, or they will pull harder and eventually break the system in half. It’s called Civil War and we’ve already seen one in this country. Given the close-minded, logic-defying, “no compromises,” “it’s our way or else” fervor of the right, we might just yet see another.

Why bother with polling places when we have polls!

When did polls become news? They aren't really news. They aren't concrete facts. They're easily manipulated demographic surveys. Gallup polls, which tend to be Republican, tend to put Bush in the lead, sometimes by a margin so far outside all other polls that it simply defies the traditional "margin of error" and makes the entire survey highly questionable.

But even without this—why is it news? I understand that polls are vital for campaigns who are trying to figure out what people want to hear—it's not pandering, it's politics. Despite what we've seen the past four years, where many politicians have worked solely on political agendas and ignored a majority of their constituents—Politicians are supposed to represent we the people.

So polling is fine for politicians trying to get elected—and even those in office, so they can better represent their constituents.

But why is polling news? How does polling help you and I? Should it matter to us how other people are voting? It does, of course, and it especially does to the notorious "undecideds" who can be swayed by things like, "He's going to win, I want to vote for the winner."

The problem with polls is that they become self-fulfilling prophecies. Election experts and psychologists both say that many people "want to vote for the winner." So if the polls keep telling them that one candidate is going to win, they lean towards that candidate simply because they think he or she will be the winner.

That's not reporting news--that's making news. That's s like TV networks sitting around with crystal balls, trying to tell us what's going to happen, trying to change the future to fit their predictions.

Plus they're notoriously inaccurate. A tradition margin of error of "plus or minus three" simply means that they could be wrong by 6%. When two candidates are against each other, and one has 51% and one has 48%, that's three points. So the poll could say one candidate is "winning" when in reality, they could still lose, even within those very poll results.

And it's not enough for "news" agencies to trumpet polls like election results, they seem desperate to tell us, even months in advance, who will win and who has "already lost."

But they're even more inaccurate about this. Clinton was called "unelectable," by many major pundits and news agencies. But he was elected twice. Howard Dean was "unstoppable" and on both Time and Newsweek. He was absolutely the Democratic candidate, he had no competition, and he would even have beaten Bush if the elections were held in early 2004. But elections aren't held in early 2003, and a few weeks later Dean was history.

As soon as Kerry won the Iowa caucus (not even a real election!), the media dubbed him "unstoppable," and "the winner." This was repeated and repeated, right at the time other states were having elections, and this propelled him to the top. The media gave him the same "unstoppable" treatment they gave Dean, but this time the timing was such that Kerry didn't even need to win all the primaries, because he'd already won in the press.

When I worked on previous presidential campaigns, I saw, first hand, how people are persuaded by polls—especially on election day when I was going door to door trying to get people to vote. Registered voters would just give up and not vote, because the polls "told them who'd already won."

So how, exactly, are these polls strengthening democracy?

They don't. So why not stop running them as if they were news, or worse, election results.

Otherwise, I can see a future like some sci-fi movie. In a few years, government and media will collude and decide elections are too drawn out and expensive. Instead they’ll just poll 1500 likely voters and we’ll all live with whatever the sample tells us. Why bother with polling places when we have polls! And if we fall for that one, you can kiss democracy goodbye for good. Or bad.

Why I’m proud to be a progressive liberal

Liberals stand for Freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of choice. Freedom of religion. Freedom to be who you are, to love who you choose and raise your family the way you want.

Liberals stand for “liberty and justice for all” not just some.

Liberals believe in such radical things as “all men (and women) are created equal.” That was a radical belief, 250 years ago, but the generations of brave American men and women who have died for democracy, have done so to protect those once radical beliefs which are at the core of our beliefs as Americans—our freedoms of speech, choice, and equality.

Those things are worth fighting for, because they are the keystones of what our country was founded on. If you believe in democracy, if you believe in our constitution and bill of rights, then you believe in those things. If you don’t believe in those things, then you can say you love America, but you are confused as to what America is really about.

Liberals believe in an America “of the people, by the people and FOR the people.” Not for corporations like Enron and Exxon, but individuals—like you and me.

Liberals believe in the American dream—where every child can grow up to be what he or she wants, where every immigrant can make a better life for themselves and their children, the way our immigrant ancestors did for us.

In short, Liberals stand for the very things that our forefathers stood for—freedom of speech, religion. Freedom from oppression.

Neo-Conservatives are now Regressives
Yet, strangely, “Regressives” (also called neo-cons or the Right Wing) don’t believe in the most basic tenets of our Republic. They say they do. They wave flags and sing songs and call themselves patriots.

But their actions speak louder than their words. Regressives say one thing, and do another. That’s called hypocrisy. It’s also called lying. Their actions show they don’t believe in freedom of speech. They don’t believe it’s right to criticize your government, unless your government consists of duly elected Democrats. If your government is run by Republicans who didn’t win the popular vote, then you should “shut up” or you are unpatriotic. But that, my friends, is unpatriotic.

I’m not talking about real conservatives—those who believe in less government interference for all. I respect real conservatives. I don’t respect people who call themselves “conservatives” but are really radicals in traditional clothing who are actively trying to undermine civil rights and our very constitution.

Regressives want fewer controls on corporations and more on personal lives. They work to make discrimination a constitutional amendment. Those people are not conservatives. They are radicals, and their very actions show that they do not understand or agree with the most basic tenets of democracy and our Republic.

Regressives don’t believe in freedom of choice. They don’t approve of freedom of expression. They want to restrict what you say, what you hear. They work tirelessly to censor people’s freedom of speech, to intimidate those who try to speak their minds, to punish and fine those who do.

They want to tell you how to live your life. They want to tell you what you can do with your body—even who you can love. They want to control you, personally, just like any communist, fascist, dictator-controlled state.

Regressives don’t even believe in your most basic civil rights—the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. They have already passed laws that let the government arrest you—for no reason. Imprison you, for no reason, without access to your family or legal representation. This is the kind of thing that happens in dictatorships—it’s not supposed to happen here.

And yet it can—and it does—because Regressives have undermined your basic civil rights as an American. While doing so, they’ve repeatedly told you how they’ve made you safer. It’s a lie. You’re not safer from terrorists, and worse, you are in more danger from your own government.

Regressives have learned from oppressive regimes how to say one thing and do another, and as long as they keep repeating the “good stuff” they keep doing the “bad stuff” and people are confused. And scared. They want you to be scared. Not happy. They want you to be angry and unhappy. No happy.

Liberals agree with Thomas Jefferson and what he wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “the pursuit of happiness.” Regressives believe in “the pursuit of money and power.”

Regressives don’t even believe in family...
Regressives don’t believe in “America the Beautiful.” They believe only in profit. Now, there’s nothing wrong with profit—America is built on profit. But Regressives believe in profit at other people’s expensive—profit at your expense. For profit, they will despoil your land, pollute your skies, and say it’s OK for your kids to have more poisonous mercury in their milk. This is a fact—this is what they have done in the last four years. They have poisoned your children for their profit.

They have killed your children for their profits. They have sent them to wars they knew were not needed, but wars from which they could make profit. Billions and Billions of dollars of profit. So much profit that it’s costing you, personally, at least $31,000--this year. Oh, you can’t pay that all this year—that’s OK, they’ll keep taking the money from you in the future—and from your children, to pay for their profits.

Regressives are stealing from you. Right now. And what do YOU get from this? Do you get a more secure country? No. Do you get a cleaner environment? No. Do your children get a better education? No. Do you get better health care. No. What do you get out of it? Screwed.

Regressives are immoral.
Let me repeat that, because it’s something people haven’t seemed to notice. Regressives say they are religious. But their actions show them to be immoral hypocrites. A highly religious friend wrote this:

To those people who have studied the Jesus of the Scripture, - we understand that he taught that evil often pretends to be 'righteous' and the hallmark of evil, is hypocrisy. Therefore, if the large factions (denominations) are indeed following a false version of Christianity (anti-Christos), -- then collectively they will be the very thing they claim to abhor. Their primary doctrines will be based on lies, and they will use a superficial 'study' of the Scriptures to allege their doctrines (of demons) are "The Word of the Lawd".

This described regressives, neo-conservatives, the Republicans in power.

They start wars. They kill thousands of innocent people. They steal money from you—and worse, your children’s future. They lie about what they do. They say they for education and they cut educational spending. They say they are for the environment, yet they eliminate environmental regulations designed to protect you—and they destroy your world, and your health. They say they are for health care, but they do nothing for you—while actively working to ensure that drug companies make more money.

Regressives want to create amendments to the constitution which deny rights to at least 10% of Americans. That’s downright un-American. And it’s immoral. It’s immoral to deny basic human rights, and yet Regressives want to turn their immorality into law—law that runs so counter to the constitution that it would require the constitution be amended. That’s wrong.

So why don’t Regressives “seem” immoral? Because they talk a good game. They talk about freedom and American Values, and all they do is talk. Their actions speak louder than words. Their actions show them to be dangerous revolutionaries, true anti-American radicals who are tirelessly working to undermine democracy as we know it.

They talk about how bad Communists are, then they use their tactics against us. They work to remove our right to vote. They try to not count our vote. They try to postpone and cancel elections. They don’t bother counting votes, and instead have their friends on the Supreme court decide the election. They create presidential powers not in the constitution, upsetting the balance of power, so the perfectly balance system designed by our forefathers, the executive, legislative and judicial branches are out of whack, the executive branch has all the power, unchecked. This is not democracy.

The regressive angenda is not what Washington and Jefferson and Adams gave their lives to create. What the Regressives are doing is sliding our government into a Fascist Dictator state. Instead of “freedom from oppression,” the Regressives are turning our own government into the oppressors.

Neo-conservative regressives stand for “the land of the oppressed, and the home of the bully.”

Liberals stand for the “land of the free and home of the brave.”

LINKS

Read this passionate and perceptive piece:

WITH TREMBLING FINGERS

By Hal Crowther

“... I don't think it's accurate to describe America as polarized between Democrats and Republicans, or between liberals and conservatives. It's polarized between the people who believe George Bush and the people who do not. Thanks to some contested ballots in a state governed by the president's brother, a once-proud country has been delivered into the hands of liars, thugs, bullies, fanatics and thieves. The world pities or despises us, even as it fears us. What this election will test is the power of money and media to fool us, to obscure the truth and alter the obvious, to hide a great crime against the public trust under a blood-soaked flag. The most lavishly funded, most cynical, most sophisticated political campaign in human history will be out trolling for fools. I pray to God it doesn't catch you.”

Read the entire piece here.

• Election Protection - Help oversee the vote to make sure it's fair and accurate
  
• One Term President--Great graphics for you to use
• Air America - Progressive Radio--listen to it online
  
• Worst President Ever! - Daniel Carr's daily blog
• Black Box Voting - Consumer election protection
  
• Verified Voting - making sure your vote counts!
  
• See Ya George! - Fun political gifts and clothing