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."