Let's hope true conservatives make a comeback

I'm a democrat, but I'm hoping true conservatives make a come back? Why? Because real conservatives who want less government interference (along with lower taxes) are libertarians. They support freedom and the constitution. They are, in short, everything current so-called Republicans aren't. And currently, the only true conservative I know is Ron Paul.

They're what Republicans used to be about before they turned into neo-CONS, con-men and out-and-out liars who sell the idea you can lower taxes, raise spending and eliminate the deficit at the same time. That all started with Reagan. It was "tell people what they want to hear and they'll buy it," which they did.

That was bad enough, but then it degraded into "Tell people what we want them to believe, and they will," and they did.

The same Republicans who said they were against big government have created the biggest, most intrusive governments in US history (this also started with Reagan) with the biggest deficits to match.

They worked to build the Federal government into a frightening power that steals control from the states (and individual citizens!), defeating one of the most basic protections the founding fathers fought for--keeping federal powers in check.

They systematically remove oversight from corporations while making the government more intrusive in personal lives. That means they have, in a few (but seemingly endless) years, turned our democracy into something not far from a true regime (one where corporations control government).

The Feds are now run in great part by corporations. This is especially true of energy companies , one reason the US went to war--oil (argue all you want, but it's painfully true).

Energy companies also crafted the governments still mostly energy policy--Cheney's still never had to say who he met with or how they formed the policy--much less what the policy really is.

Meanwhile, gas prices have more than doubled since Bush took office. Why aren't Americans outraged? Especially when oil company profits reach new levels of greed. I believe companies should make a profit, but making more of a profit when the country is bleeding money into oil companies coffers is outrageous un-American price-gouging. Yet it's precisely what the neo-CONs are doing--redistributing the wealth of the country from individuals to a select group of corporations.

The "Republicans" in control now are not Republicans in the classic sense, hence the "neo-CON." They are, in fact, radicals who are working tirelessly to undermine the very roots of democracy.

They got a president in office who wasn't elected, through the Supreme Court, which was itself unconstitutional and a radical violation of constitutional law.

They have given the president unprecedented powers, while idiotically limited their own in the house and senate. And we've seen now how hard the Executive branch has been working to turn the Justice department, one of the balances of their power, into a tool for their power.

In the mean time, Democrats have been turned into "conservatives," trying to protect the constitution and protect individuals from the ever-escalating and out of control federal government. That used to be what Republicans said they were doing to protect us from Democratic socialist ideas--like Medicare!

There are still true conservatives in the Republican party, and they've been disgusted by what "their" party has foisted on America--and the world.

The trouble is, the neo-cons are good at really only one thing--propaganda. They're brilliant at it, just like all fascists must be in order to control citizens.

Fear is the big motivator. Greed is #2. They play on people's most base emotions and fears to control them--and make people want to be controlled.

They're also masters of language. Recently the escalation of the was was called a "surge" and the Democrats stupidly bought into it.

You cannot win using their language. Democrats needed to call it an escalation, and they need to start saying that the current administration is immoral--which it is. Lying. Stealing. Killing. All immoral. All Bush administration highlights.

Paul uses this word several times, including "an immoral monetary system," and "Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position"

Words like Morality and Immoral have been warped and perverted by the Neo-cons, but when people stop and think what those words really mean to them, then they start to see that they don't mean starting wars, killing and maiming people, and allowing corporations to rape our treasury and plunge us into debt (some of the worst corporate offenders, like Halliburton are actually leaving the US for the protection of the middle east, while others simply have offshore money laundering operations as efficient as those of the drug cartels!)

I have no beef with true conservatives. People who truly want to defend freedom and civil rights. Those who are against big government interference in our lives.

That said, I hope that those same people will also realize that a national health system, or an affordable insurance guarantee system is not big government, but good government, one that's really working for the security of the people.

Meanwhile, let's hope that Republicans stop being radical fascists and go back to being true Republicans again.

It's called the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT and NOT the OFFENSE DEPARTMENT

Republicans keep trying to act as if they're heros because of 9/11.

The truth is the Bush administration and Republican majority needs to take responsibility for 9/11 happening in the first place!

Of course, they don't take responsibility for anything. Not for starting a war. Not for the massive deficit. Not for unemployment and a weak economy. Not for the loss of American jobs. They preach "personal responsibility" merely as a way of trying to avoid their own responsibility.

Sep 11 happened under the watch of A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND MAJORITY.

That's unarguable. They might try to say that Clinton's years in office allowed it to happen, but in truth, the Clinton administration met daily--with the president, to counter-terrorism.

Did we have a terrorist attack during the Clinton administration? No.

Did we have a terrorist attack during the Bush administration? Yes. The Bush administration ignored the situation, ignored memos reading, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike United States." That's not Clinton's fault, that's clearly Bush's fault.

Now some candidates, including the formerly centrist and only recently right-wing Romney (and of course Mr. Cheney, with his massive public support of a 9%, probably the lowest of any politician in US history!) is claiming the Democrats want the US to go back on the "defensive."

That's right. We do.

Our military is called The DEFENSE DEPARTMENT and not The OFFENSE DEPARTMENT. It's called that for good reason--the US is not supposed to start wars. We are supposed to finish them. Prevent them if possible.

But the Bush administration didn't allow the defense department to plan the offense, Rumsfeld and Rove and Wolfowitz and their political cronies planned it (if you can call what they did planning), over the heads and the objections of the trained military generals.

Yet have men take responsibility for their mistakes? No. Have they taken responsibility for 9/11 and the attacks on American soil in the first place? No.

Finally, virtually everything the Bush administration has said or done regarding this offensive and unnecessary war has been wrong since the start. And yet they keep acting as if doing more of the same will make it better.

The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. What does that say about the Bush administration and their "plans" for the future?

Think about it. Yes, THINK. They don't want you to, but you can. It even feels good. You'll be so proud of yourself. Give it a try.

Health insurance – unattainable or unaffordable

I’m mad as hell, and it’s not good for my health, which is a problem, because in a few months I may not have health insurance.

I was careless enough to have been sick in the past, which, in insurance parlance means I have a pre-existing condition which means that no insurance company in the US will sell me an individual health insurance policy. Not one.

What’s worse is that without insurance, I pay five to ten times more for healthcare than insurance companies. That’s right. I had a colonoscopy without insurance and it cost $5,000. And insurance company would pay around $1,200 for the same procedure with the same doctors and facilities.

That’s the exact opposite of how it should be. If you can’t afford insurance, you certainly can’t afford to pay five times more than insurance companies do. And yet, if you’re “self-insured” (meaning it all comes out of your pocket), doctors and hospitals charge you much, much more.

The only way I might possibly get individual health insurance is through a special “high-risk” group in California, but the cost is almost $1,500 a month, and I literally have to wait for other people in that group to die before there’s space for me to join.

That makes health insurance unattainable.

Anyone who’s ever been really sick knows that without your health you have nothing. Yet this most basic need of its citizens is not only ignored by the government of the United States of America.

This government is more concerned about the corporate well being of insurance and drug companies, than the individual well being of American citizens. That’s the very definition of fascism, which a most famous fascist, Mussolini, called “Corporatism.”

Why haven’t the Republicans, who have been in total power for the past six years, bothered with health care? Because they’re in the pockets of insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, all of who are making billions with the current system. Why would they want to change?

Proof positive of this is the prescription drug plan for seniors, a plan so needlessly complex and convoluted that a majority of seniors aren’t taking advantage of it because they can’t understand it. As an example, a senior could accidentally sign up for a certain type of plan that might not even cover their specific prescriptions! Plans cover seniors for a few thousand dollars, then inexplicably leaves them without coverage for a few thousand dollars more, than covers them again. Huh? What kind of insanity is that?

The same kind of insanity that leads lawmakers to write into the law a clause that prevents the government from negotiating with drug makers on drug prices. Medicare can do this. Private insurance companies can do this. But wait, the US government plan for seniors can’t. Who profits? Only the drug companies.

The Republican politicians in power, from the President on down through the Congress and Senate, already all get the best Federal Health insurance. Why can’t these politicians give their constituents the same health coverage they get?

They say, “It’s too expensive.” Really? You could pay for this system simply by raising income tax on the top 2% of taxpayers to the pre-Bush levels. Just 2% of the population. That means people earning over $200,000 a year. That’s probably not you and me, and if it is you, you can afford it.

I’m lucky to have insurance now, and only do because of a government law called HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) that forces insurance companies to allow me to buy a policy because my previous group policy was canceled. HIPAA protects health insurance coverage for workers and their families when they change or lose their jobs, or when policies are canceled.

In my case, I had a group insurance policy through a group called the Media Alliance. They offered insurance to their members for 30 years, until last year when insurance companies claimed they weren’t a legitimate group. Even though they had been for the 30 previous years. Bunk.

My current insurance company offered me a choice: I could go from paying $600 a month, to paying $1,400 a month. I guess I was supposed to be grateful to be offered this by the same insurance company I’d paid for three years to the tune of almost $15,000. In return, I’d received maybe $3,000 in benefits. So they’d made $12,000 profit from me, and now would reward me by only charging me $1,400 a month. I declined their offer to earn more profit from me in a single year than they’d made in the previous three.

Or I could take advantage of HIPAA to find another policy for $500 a month, which I did. But HIPAA only protects you for 12 months after which, you’re out in the cold.

What do I do then? There are still some “Professional Associations, Guilds and Societies (groups you can join if you meet certain professional criteria) that offer group insurance. This insurance costs $600 a month, at least until the end of the year, but they’ve announced “major rate increases” that suggest it will cover $1,000 a month.

That’s unaffordable.

So far, after months of research, I’ve yet to find one high-deductible plan in California that basically only covers major medical or hospitalization (and allow me to pay the same “negotiated rates” as insurance companies, not 5 to 10 times more as individuals, as they do now).

I’ve yet to find any group insurance that offers access to a “Health Savings Account,” yet another government law that’s so complex it manages to exclude most of the people who could use it. Why can’t anyone just have a Tax-exempt Health Savings Account without first having to find an insurance company that will accept them? Clearly because the insurance company is more important than you are.

I just want a policy that protects me in case of something major, not everyday stuff. And yet, that’s not an option (or at least not one I’ve found and I’ve been researching this for over two years).

US only industrialized nation not to protect its citizens

You surely already know that the United States it the only industrialized nation that doesn’t offer national health insurance. It is truly, deeply sad (and pathetic) that this country can spend hundreds of billions on a war that was based on lies, but we can’t afford to take care of our own people. In the US, we spend more money on health care than any other country. Yet we do not receive the best health care. What’s worse, almost 50 million Americans can either not get, or afford health care.

According to The World Health Organization “The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance,” The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th .”

The US needs a national healthcare system—and already has a good one—Medicare. But you can only get it of you’re over 65 years old.

• Medicare operates with administrative costs of just 2.6%
• The average HMO operate with administrative costs of 25.2%.

That means Government health insurance is 10 times more efficient than private health insurance. That’s good sense and good business.

If the government can provide good, efficient care for 1/10^th the cost of private insurance, shouldn’t they be doing it?

It would save the entire country billions, which would, in turn, increase the GNP for business (and, as a nice side effect, help all American citizens with their health care...)

I’ve heard the arguments against a national health system, but my many friends in countries such as the UK, Denmark and Australia, are all happy with their health care systems. They don’t have to worry about it. It’s there.

In Australia, if you’re in an auto accident, not only are all your medical expenses covered, but so is your physical therapy, so is any home care you require (including child care, cooking and house cleaning).

In Australia, if you are in an auto accident, the government makes sure you are properly taken care of. In the US, if you are in an auto accident, you are on your own. Even if you have expensive insurance it may not cover home care and most certainly won’t cover child care, cooking or cleaning.

Based on that—where would you rather get sick or injured?

The US system is most expensive, but not best.

Medicine here is now controlled by insurance companies who tell doctors what they can and can’t do. And by malpractice insurance companies who tells doctors what they should and shouldn’t do. And by pharmaceutical companies that push drugs because they are easy.

I went to an expensive doctor in one of the richest counties in the country. He looked at my blood tests, not at me, and he gave me what I call “medicine by the numbers.” If your blood number is this, we do that.

He didn’t bother to see what other health issues I had or other medications I was taking. He treated me as if I was a machine rather than a human being who might be even slightly different from other human beings.

So we’re in a system where even expensive doctors can be bad doctors, because they are working under so many constraints that they choose the simplest route that will cause them the fewer liability problems.

And a recent study even showed that there are many doctors in this country who still don’t wash their hands regularly between patients!

Doctors aren’t happy with this system that controls and often prevents them from providing the best health care options to their patients. A system that can even prevent patients from being treated as individual human beings. A system where insurance companies pay them too little, while simultaneously charge them so much for malpractice insurance that it can put them out of business.

As for choice of doctors, if you have insurance, your choice is already limited. You can use a doctor who’s in the program and the insurance will pay a higher percentage, or one who isn’t, and if you’re in an HMO your insurance won’t cover it, if you’re in a PPO they’ll pay a much lower percentage (sometimes as low as 20%).

So a national program would actually give you more choice.

It would also give you more protection.

Right now your private health insurance company can stop you from getting treatment. If they don’t think the treatment is valid or cost-effective, they can deny it, which means they don’t pay for it. Every day valid treatment is denied and people have to sue their own health insurance companies to get the coverage they’ve been paying for. This doesn’t happen with national health care systems.

What this country needs:

The right to be able to buy health insurance you can afford, that will protect your home if you get sick. Right now you can go bankrupt paying medical bills.

Every other industrialized nation already does this, so the health of their citizens is taken care of. It’s clearly possible. All it takes is for politicians to put their constituents ahead of corporations. Will that happen? I will if you make it an issue, tell your elected representatives it’s important to you—and most importantly—vote them out of office if they fail to put citizens health before corporate profit.

I believe: God loves me. He's not necessarily crazy about you.

I am a believer.

I choose to believe a great many things, including that the future will be better today if people open their hearts and minds.

But not everyone chooses what they believe, and by now it's clear that the only people who really believe George Bush is doing a good job are the same people who have been taught by their fundamentalist church (of any religion) that you believe what you are told—because your you are judged on your ability to believe the unbelievable. Thinking is discouraged, as it gets in the way of blind belief.

And while the ability to believe is crucial for humanity—one has to choose what they want to believe, not just believe whatever they are told.

Here's a list of things "believers" are told to believe.

1. Bush is doing God's holy work. That explains why a lot of what he does doesn't make sense, because it's all part of God's grand plan and it's just too complicated for us to understand, and besides, what are you doing questioning God's plan? Do you think you're smarter than God? You are so going to rot in hell.

2. George Bush is our savior. Because he's speaking directly to God in the white house, rather than listening to all those shrill voices of people like US Citizens and other mere mortals, we will all be saved. Thank you, baby Jesus!

3. God comes before the US government, which is why we must do his work from our tax dollars.

4. God Bless America. Of course. I mean, it's right on the money and everything.

5. God Damn everybody else. This would be on the money but they ran out of room.

6. There is only one God, and he's ours God Dammit! Everyone else worships false gods and idols. We, meanwhile, have lots of statues and saints and things we pray to, but that's OK because they're white.

7. God will forgive us anything if we just confess our sins and apologize nicely and give money to the church. This doesn't apply to Arabs, Jews, Asians, Blacks and Gays, who may say they're sorry but are known to be sarcastic and insincere and would say anything to get out of trouble so they're going to burn in hell while we float around on clouds. When we say this they laugh and say, "We wouldn't want to go to any heaven where you were" which just shows how Satan has gotten to them.

8. God hates fags because they are scary and might want to look at us naked in the gym or God forbid, kiss us when we don't expect it which of course would turn us into fags--it works kind of like vampires and werewolves, which we're also afraid of. We are afraid we are gay but God will save us as long as we only do gay or kinky stuff in the basement.

9. God hates fags because they mock marriage even more than the 50%+ plus heteros who get divorced. We don't want gays or vampires or werewolves to be able to marry.

10. God hates Arabs, all Arabs, no matter what they believe because look, they're wearing dress-like things and scarf-y things on their heads, which means they must be gay, even though they are very hairy and if they were in the US they would have to be waxed.

11. God isn't crazy about Jews--yeah, they're his chosen people, but that doesn't mean he can't be pissed that they don't believe Jesus is his son which is what he told us to believe, and we believe it, despite much proof against it, including in The DaVinci Code which we loved and we're looking forward to the movie with that nice Tom Hanks who played gay but thankfully isn't really because he's married and can't be.

12.God finds the Chinese downright annoying. But he says it's OK for them to make toys and clothes and electronics and almost everything else we buy because they have little hands that are good for this kind of work.

13. We can't wait for Armageddon so we can quit our jobs where we have to work with blacks and Jews and go to heaven with all the right people.

14.We're always right.

15.They're always wrong.

16.Life is black and white, and white is right.

17.God bless us, everyone, except for you, because your shoes look gay.

(P.S.) I don't believe in any of those things. I'm just reporting what I see.

A message to Values Voters

The past few elections have been decided by you, the "Values Voters." The question is--what do you consider to be values?

I'm sure you don't actually value lying, cheating, stealing, and killing, but that's what the administration you voted for has done under the banner of "values."

I can understand that you may have been too busy to notice that the Bush administration and Republican-run Congress are immoral.

I know, it's shocking, but if you look at what they've done there's really no arguing against it. It's all true. I know you think they mean well, and they probably do--but their actions of endless lies, taking from the poor to give to the rich, starting wars that kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of other human beings is unquestionably immoral.

Republicans don't want you to have affordable health care. They don't want you to have clean air and water. They don't care about jobs for your--or your kids.

If they did, why have they voted against all those things over and over and over? Ask your Republican politicians why. And compare what they say to what they've done, because it's what they've done that matters.

Yes, lying, cheating and stealing are values--they just don't happen to be the values this country was founded on, or the values that most Americans really share.

That's why in 2006 and beyond, you need to look at what politicians have done, not what they've said. When you do that, you'll see Democrats are the party of Morals.

That's right, DEMOCRATS ARE MORAL.

Now, severe-right-wingers will say this isn't true, since Democrats think gay people should have all the rights given to them under the constutution and other outrageous things.

But the fact is--treating all people equally is moral. It's even what Jesus would do. So how come it's good enough for Jesus but not good enough for a group of people who now think they can redefine morals into their own perverted definition?

DEMOCRACY is based on MORALITY. Freedom. Equality.

Democrats believe in those things. Republicans say they do, but their actions have shown they don't. Republican actions show they don't believe in freedom or equality. Not freedom of speech. Not freedom to choose what you will do with your own life and body. Only freedom for corporations. That's not democracy, that's fascism.

So, to recap: The current administration and republican-lead congress are IMMORAL.

Democrats are moral--they work to take care of our families and communities through healthcare, education, and honesty in goverment.

Remember that on the next election day.

Welcome to the Third World, America!

The Bush administrations reaction (or lack thereof) to the disaster of hurricane Katrina is perfect culmination of George W. Bush's legacy of turning the US into a third-world country.

First our elections are run like a third world country, with open fraud, corruption and an oddly un-American inability to count. Then we find ourselves with an unelected leader who does whatever he wants, the citizens and treasury be damned (and we have been).

Then Bush's criminal neglect (yet more grounds for impeachment) and insane desire to conquer Iraq meant he was blind to everything but his wishful thinking, his “faith-based” reality as he himself called it.

Let's be clear--the severity of this disaster is the fault of George W. Bush and the Republicans in congress and senate.

They have had all the power for the past six years, so they must take all the responsibility. They are constantly preaching "personal responsibility," which means we all have to take responsibility for our actions, so it's time they took responsibility for theirs.

Bush, in particular, is responsible. Why? If his administration had invested in upgrading the levees, which they knew were a disaster waiting to happen (they'd been warned by FEMA, independent experts and the press), they would have spared countless lives and trillions of dollars. You’d think that if even all they care about is money they’d at least think about that. But they are so supremely short-sighted they don’t even think their actions have consequences, or if they do, that they will matter (so far, they've miraculously managed to avoid the consequences).

Another reason--If the national guard and coast guard and reservists and military were here, they could have airlifted people and supplies, prevented looting, set up emergency shelters and hospitals. But they were 10,000 miles away, taking care of citizens of another country--or at least giving it a noble if futile effort.

If Bush hadn’t squanders a trillion dollars on an unnecessary war we would have the money to rebuild everything—better--rather than how it will be built, which is faster and cheaper.

While even I can’t blame the storm on W, we all must finally assign blame where it so clearly lies--in the lap of the Bush administration--they are solely responsible for the severity of the outcome. They may be trying to blame not just Clinton, but Carter, but they can no longer keep passing the buck when they have spent six years making decisions that have directly lead to this.

I know the South will dry out, that somehow the houses will be torn down to the studs and rebuilt, that somehow lives will be rebuilt.

I even have a suggestion of where the money can come from--the oil companies—their profits are up 30% from last year! Not revenues, but profits. I am a capitalist, I believe companies are in business to make a profit, but I also believe that excessive profits are a sign of profiteering, a war crime, and a crime against our country. Just as Enron was proven to be stealing from Americans, oil companies are doing the same thing now, to the tune of billions. And no one is stopping them, because they are all friends of the Bush family. That's no secret. They don't even try to keep it secret. The facts are all out there, plain as the noses on their Pinocchio faces.

Meanwhile--I don’t know how so many lives, in such a huge area can overcome this—or how it can possible not set the south back 20 years at least.

I also don’t know how the US can once again stand up proudly in the world and claim we’re the richest and strongest. I don't know how we can pretend that a huge number of our own people are living in poverty. How we can hide the fact that the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer, and more widespread.

===

BUSH HAS PROVEN WE ARE NO LONGER A SUPERPOWER.

• Bush has proven how weak we really are. We can't take down a little country with almost no military, even by spending hundreds of billions. We can't fight their rocks with our rockets.
  
• Bush has proven we don’t take care of our own infrastructure, much less our own people.
• Bush has proven his “homeland security” is a total sham, a bizarro world where the politicians are congratulating themselves on a “remarkable response” while cities are flooded and burning at the same time (but I guess that is remarkable).
• Bush has proven that should this have been an “actual” emergency, like a terrorist attack, that his government would be not only unable, but apparently unwilling to step in and do its job—working for its citizens.
• Bush has proven how weak and bankrupt—both morally and financially our country has become in only six years.
  

That is a remarkable achievement, terribly remarkable.

Now, if the people affected (and those watching) don’t go out and start voting, and if they don’t start voting OUT the people who did this to them and voting IN people who pledge to actually help them, at home, in their life, with their jobs and their health, then maybe the fundamentalists are right—maybe God is trying to wash away the sinners, only I’d substitute “brain-dead lemmings” for sinners.

Because if God really wanted to wash away the sinners, he would have flooded the White House and probably three quarters of Congress. I can’t imagine that God’s aim is that far off.

Meanwhile, welcome to the third world.

How English will save the West

A few days ago, People's Bank of China announced that the Chinese yuan is no longer pegged to the dollar. As Paul Krugman explains in his New York Times Column, this will have a serious impact on western economies.

It may very well be China's way of taking over the US--not through military means, but our own game—capitalism.

But my personal oddball theory is that the thing that will protect the US (and by association, Europe) is English. It’s already the defacto "world language," learned by people around the world the way they would have learned French in the 19^th century.

I have many friends in Brazil where they speak Portuguese, despite being surrounded by the Spanish-speaking South America. Their second language of choice is not Spanish, but English. I have a 17 year old graphic designer friend there and he speaks excellent English with no desire to speak Spanish.

Chinese, like Japanese, is just too old--and too complex to spread around the world. It takes too long to learn--and while learning it may actually help the mental acuity of those who do, it's not an efficient or direct language, it's not a language design for business, the way English is.

I went to Japan three times and learned first hand how hard Japanese is for business--because it was designed to be indirect, polite--it's specifically structured along cultural lines. Clearly the Japanese are doing well in busienss despite this, but their success, even at its height, never caused a flood of “foreigners” to learn Japanese.

Chinese is similar, and while people can clearly learn it (over 1 billion served!), it's not going to be a second language of choice for Western people because it's too alien, it's roots are not in Latin the way all Western languages are.

That doesn't mean that china won't become the US of the 21st century in terms of “Super Power,” they very well might--though it will take one or two more generations who are allowed free communication and contact so they can express their creativity in ways that are good for business.

But I don't think future generations of people in the West will be speaking Chinese, which means that the culture war will still be won by the west.

Yes, we all love kung fu movies, but how many have affected styles of dress, music, and pop-culture in general. Even after many years of westernization, Japan's Anime is one of the very few Japanese pop-culture phenomenons.

So my money's on English and Western pop-culture, and that tends to have a great deal of power over the imagination and perception of power. And it's perception of power, rather than real power, that counts in the end.

The Culture of Cheapness

When money is all that matters, life is cheap.

I was checking out at K-Mart and the “impulse items” by the registers were those long-stemmed lighters you use to light a fireplace or candles. You could buy a red one with 1 oz of lighter fluid for $2.59. Or... You could buy a blue one that contained 2 oz of lighter fluid, had a big sticker on the package that said, “Twice as much fuel!” and cost $2.95. Which one do you think sold the best? Probably the one that offered “twice as much for 36 cents more.”

The choice seemed obvious—it was clearly a better value. I asked the woman at the register, “Did all these sell out?” and she looked at me like I was nuts. “Nobody wants those,” she said, shaking her head as if I was nuts. “Why not?” I asked, innocently enough. “Because they cost more!” she said, as if I was just too stupid. Honestly, how could I be so dumb? The cheaper one was, well, cheaper.

My problem is that I’m used to stores like Target, Costco, Marshall’s and Ross. Stores that value quality—good products at good prices.

But Wal-Mart and K-Mart have only one value: cheapness.

Not inexpensive but cheap. Not good. Not desirable. Just cheap.

Places like K-Mart and Wal-Mart based everything on cheapness. That’s the only value they value. This belittles and cheapens everything in its path.

• EMPLOYEES ARE CHEAP: they don’t get decent wages or benefits, they're dehumanized.
  
• MANUFACTURERS and their laborers are cheap. They’re squeezed to death and forced to hire out to sweat shops in Asia so they can sell for ever lower prices. More people dehumanized.
  
• EVERYBODY SUFFERS ON THE PATH TO CHEAPNESS. Everybody's dehumanized.
  

LIFE BECOMES CHEAP—When saving thirteen cents becomes your main value, then you lose sight of morals—like the other people you had to injure along the way.

If you truly want the lowest possible prices, there are countless thrift stores that let you buy good items at prices 1/10^th of what they cost at Wal-Mart—and your money goes to non-profit, charitable organizations at the same time. You save money by doing good. It’s true moral values at work in the economy.

CHEAP is just another word for contemptible, despicable, shameful, shoddy, inferior, second-rate, substandard, stingy, miserly, mean.

This is the polar opposite of Loreal’s “because you’re worth it.” These stores drum in the message you aren’t worth it. That’s one of the most demoralizing things you can tell someone.

A few years ago my friend’s marriage was falling apart, and so was his car. He went to replace it with a new, low-cost Toyota, but when he brought it home, his now ex-wife said to him, “This is too nice, you don’t deserve this.” It’s not like he bought a Cadillac, he bought a low-end Toyota, but the point was clear—he was unworthy.

That’s what Wal-Mart and K-Mart tell their customers. you aren’t worthy. It’s demeaning and more than that dehumanizing and de-moralizing.

No wonder people are becoming confused about what “moral values” really mean. They are being bombarded with negative messages—not just the traditional advertising of inadequacy, but a constant and steady mantra of how little they are worth.

Go to one of these stores and look around. Under the acres of glaring florescent lights if you stop and really look you’ll find it an eye-opening experience—so ugly, so base, so, CHEAP, that it just deadens you.

It teaches you that money is all that matters, and that cheapness is the ultimate virtue, no matter how immoral the price.

Thinking is hard. FEELING is EASY

The Democrats' mistake in recent years has been so simple they keey overlooking it, even as the Republicans polish their marketing skills:

You CAN'T make people THINK.

But you CAN make them FEEL.

The Democrats try to persuade people through facts. Figures. Logic. They tell people to think about what's best for them. It just doesn't work.

Meanwhile, Republicans come right out and tell people: facts don't matter, ignore the numbers, logic is for "intellectuals." Their message is always simple: FEEL. FEAR. HATE. EASY.
Republican marketers have been pressing the right buttons in an almost Speilbergian way. It works.

So always remember:

• You CAN'T make people THINK.
• But you CAN make them FEEL.

The problem with Presidents

Last week on NBC’s brilliant TV drama, The West Wing, representatives from a new Eastern European nation came to the White House to meet with a constitutional scholar who was going to help them write their own constitution.

The scholar wanted them to have a presidential democracy, but Toby Zeigler, the White House Communications Director, explained that other than the U.S., no presidential democracy in history has lasted more than 30 years.

The U.S. is the only exception. The danger is that too much power can be put in the president's hands, and the checks and balances are too easily defeated.

He urged them to choose a Parliamentary democracy where the Prime Minister was under much more direct control of the members of Parliament and therefore less likely to seize control.

We’ve seen how easy it’s been the Ws to break the system of checks and balances and put all power in their own hands. What's amazing 1) the press has not only gone along with it, it’s helped create it and 2) the members of the House and Senate didn't realize that they gave away their power and became redundant, down to the point where the White House was talking about "what will we do if the Congress is all killed?" Yes, let's plan for that with a shadow government of our own choosing...

The question now—what are we going to do with the president we have? How are we going to make him accountable to the people, not just the corporations? How are we going to stop the march into total fascism, turn around, and head back towards democracy?

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

Are we heading towards fascism, or are we already there?

Here are the 14 characteristics of fascism, written by Dr. Lawrence Britt who studied the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common.

He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism.

For more details on these elements, see this piece in the Old American Century.

THE NEW RIGHT

Think about the terms for the political sides, "Right' and "Left."

Who chose those sides? How did the Right get to be "Right?" Those terms are slanted right from the start. The left has always been "sinister" coming from the original Latin for left.

During the election I had a statement on my home page that read, "Democrats are the new conservatives," which is very true.

But interestingly, all Republicans have had to do is say they're for things--for "value," for family... and people took them at their word--even when their facts showed their
words to be very clear lies.

If we learn nothing else from Rove, it's that the pen can be mightier than the sword (certainly more efficient). That words now speak louder than actions.

So we see the power of words. We see how you can call lying, cheating and stealing "values" and get away with it, simply because you used the words "moral values."

I had lobbied to get people to start calling Bush's actions immoral, rather than wrong or stupid, and some people did call it that, but it still didn't matter, because he had the positive words on his side.

So I think it's time to stopping calling ourselves the Democratic party. The Republicans have tarnished the terms "Democrat", "left" so badly that the only way for them to recover is for the Republicans to self-destruct, which they may do, but then again, they may do it while still saying
they're moral patriots, in which case the 50% may not notice.

Democrats need to become
THE NEW RIGHT

Democrats are, in fact, more conservative than the neo-cons. We are against the kind of big government and big spending currently going on (though not necessarily against big government help in other areas, such as health care but those are issues in the best interest of citizens, which are in the best interest of business, too despite what Republicans say).

The neo-Right is Wrong.

We have to take their words away from them.

We are right, so we have to call ourselves Right. Not Lefties. Not Liberal. Not even "progressive."

We are THE NEW RIGHT, we are the TRUE CONSERVATIVES. in our case, we're not just using the words, this is what we are. We are for conserving democracy and the constitution. For
preserving the traditional values, freedoms and responsibilities that our American forefathers gave us.

I know it's a radical concept--but only in terms of terminology--our direction remains the same--for the people. The neo-cons are true radicals in that they are undermining
and demolishing the system. The only thing radical here is the terminology--and it's only radical to those who think the words "liberal" and "left" are positive things--and that's clearly a minority.

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.