What to do about 'Religious Freedom' movements

The new Religious Freedom Act (aka, Freedom to Discriminate) legislation in Indiana got me thinking this morning about why human beings – or at least a large segment of them – seem to default to distrusting others that are different.  There is always someone to hate and mistrust:  gays, blacks, muslims, atheists, Taylor Swift.  Is it the survival instinct in our brain working on overdrive trying to find things to be afraid of?  Are these people addicted to the chemicals the brain produces by feelings of fear and anger?

We know that all signals the brain interprets first go through our survival system – the reptile brain – which evaluates the threat factor of external stimuli.  Is this a threat to my survival or not?  If yes, the brain starts producing chemicals that engage the possible responses of fight, flight or freeze.  If no, the signal is passed on to the more rational part of the brain for further interpretation.  For the most part, we are able to let most of the occurrences in our lives through this filtering layer so that we can then process the events more thoughtfully.  Most situations we face in modern life are not life or death, but for some, the threshold of what is a threat seems to be low thus allowing fear and anger to dominate their lives.  This becomes an addiction.  Welcome to Fox News as your threat response dope dealer!

Getting back to Indiana’s recent legislation - at a rational level, I think one would have difficulty defending the ethics and morality of some of the Bible’s passages on homosexuality.  Those views seem so 1^st Century!  Haven’t we progressed, even a little bit, from the social views of 2000 years ago?  Of course we have, but homosexuality isn’t quite mainstream yet so the Religious Right is putting up a fight as its views are in the death throes.  Giving religious justification to discrimination is a last desperate act, but sadly, those in power in many states have mobilized fear and anger to a point in which they have the votes to enact such legislation.

People who want to discriminate against others based on their religion are simply finding phrases in religious texts that support their views.  There are plenty of passages within the Bible that contradict the negative treatment of homosexuals and call for love of all people, but those sentiments tend to get ignored as it’s much easier to hate than it is to trust and love.  Negative emotions come more easily than positive ones when confronted with differences in people, religion, and politics, yet it is the display of positive emotions under these circumstances that reveals depth of character.  It is in a word uncommon, but wouldn’t it be great if we could turn uncommon into common?  Trust and love can leave us vulnerable to the thoughts and whims of others, and that can be uncomfortable and possibly even perceived as threatening to our sense of self.  However, there is power in vulnerability; it can be the foundation of connection between two human beings.

As I come to the end of this, I’m not completely clear on the point I’m trying to make so I’ll wrap up with this.  I understand how such legislation gets enacted.  From an early age, many people are taught to distrust those who are “different”, even fear them.  That programming is not easily overridden, and it surely won’t be changed through ridicule, boycotts, etc.  Those measures may exert pressure on the State of Indiana to reconsider their stance, but they will only further marginalize and alienate the people who support such measures.  As difficult as it may sound, a dialogue of some nature must be established with the religious right, probably at an individual level, to start the process of reconciliation and promoting equal rights for all.  Futile?  Probably.  Perhaps the long-term strategy is to just wait for Millenials to start governing since their level of tolerance seems much higher, but not having a dialogue with the religious right is akin to the conservative viewpoint of “we don’t talk to our enemies.”  Can we learn to empathize with the opponents of gay rights?

Go Your Own Way

A couple of nights ago, I had the misfortune of watching The Unbelievers, a documentary following Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss around the globe engaging with audiences on reason and science.  The film is simply a visual travel scrapbook with clever soundbites interspersed. It lacked an overall theme, was very disjointed, and brought no new information to the viewer.  As a supporter of atheism and secular causes, I was disappointed and had a hard time understanding why it was rated so highly.
However, something Dr. Krauss said in one of the many conversations shown did provoke a thought on the difficulty that some believers have in subscribing to the full doctrine of their religions.  Should they have to?  Most religious texts were written well over one thousand years ago and the world has changed quite a bit in that time.  What may have been moral or acceptable in the 9th Century may be different today, and to deny such change is to deny reality and progress.
Perhaps Joseph Smith had the right idea when he started Mormonism (at least in concept, not necessarily execution).  If you're a believer, why not start your own religion or create your own doctrine?  Since there's no evidence of god anyway, it's not as if anyone can prove you wrong, and you can follow beliefs that are more consistent with who you are and the moral code of the present day.  Why should you be restricted by the world-view of someone who lived two thousand years ago and knew far less about the nature of the universe than we do in 2015?  You should not be.  Think of the freedom that would bring.  You could celebrate the religious holidays you like and maybe come up with some new ones.  You could stand up for social progress and not feel guilty that you were in opposition to the stance of your religion.  Eliminate the conflict and start the religion of YOU.  Define the morals and ethics of your religion.  Draft a set of core values and live your life by them.  Be at peace with your choices and most important, promote peace and compassion in the world.

Police and their toys

How is it that communities have the funds to arm their police with all the military grade toys they want (and most assuredly don't need) yet they can't fund music and art in their high schools?  No doubt about it, this is what a security state looks like and what's most dangerous is that many of these police officers don't have the requisite decision making skills to properly handle this equipment.

Perhaps if we invested more in the education of our community and helped them to succeed more, we wouldn't need to have a tank battalion in every town.  Just sayin...

Do What Is Right

With the debt ceiling limit and the supposed “fiscal cliff” approaching, this is one of those times when I wish I could meet with President Obama and say “dude, what are you doing?”  I think a piece of the President’s legacy is at stake in these negotiations, and at issue is whether this President wants to become the man who initiated the end of Social Security as we know it.  Perhaps that last statement is a bit melodramatic, but I honestly believe that once the door to reducing Social Security benefits is opened, it will never be closed again.  It will only get worse, and eventually the whole fund will be privatized thus ending one of the greatest social achievements of 20th century America.

Earlier today, I read some leadership quotes from the late Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf and one of them was “Do what is right, not what you think the high headquarters wants or what you think will make you look good.”  Is cutting Social Security the right thing to do?  If it is, I’d like to hear the rationale for that.  Obviously, I don’t think it is right and it appears to me that Mr. Obama is including it in the negotiations as an enticement for Republican support.  He’s valuing making a deal over doing the right thing.  That’s the only way I can explain his obsession with bi-partisanship in negotiations during his first term in office.

At the same time, the President has been skillful in creating a schism in the Republican Party over raising taxes on the wealthy, and that’s something for which he should be lauded.  The question remains though, does a cut in Social Security really need to be part of the deal when it has nothing to do with reducing the deficit?

Back to the leadership quotes from General Schwarzkopf - my sense is that Conservatives will love these quotes, but somehow find a way of ignoring them in their everyday lives.  Take the quote I referred to earlier in which Schwarzkopf said “do what is right.”  How can you justify selfishness and greed as being the right thing to do?  They speak of deficit reduction, but have no interest in taking any meaningful action on it.  If they actually cared about this country, they would invest in its success rather than divesting in its people.  How can improving our infrastructure, roads, high-speed rail, etc. be the wrong thing to do?

I do hope that we are coming into a period in which there is recognition that the Republican Party is bankrupt of ideas, both practical and moral.  Continued exposure on this front needs to occur, yet they are still dangerous.  Republicans control the US House of Representatives and thanks to gerrymandering across the country, may do so for some time.  However, this is not a time to make concessions to irrational shrills for the profit obsessed wealthy.  They’re not interested in making things better, they are only interested in staying in power.  So my request of the President is to expose their fraudulent philosophy, and in the words of General Schwarzkopf, do what is right.  Please.

Conservative Leadership - Oxymoron

If you’re a Twitter user, you may occasionally receive emails with suggestions of other Twitter users to follow.  I recently received such an email and one of the suggestions was @ChrisWidener, a leadership expert who happened to be followed by a good friend of mine as well as several others that I follow.  That all sounded appealing to me and I usually like to follow such people on Twitter, so I clicked on the link to check out his timeline.

One of the first tweets I noticed on his timeline mentioned the word “thoughtful” and Charles Krauthammer in the same sentence.  And he was being serious.  I find Krauthammer’s views to be neanderthal-like which kind of makes sense since he actually looks like a neanderthal.  Regardless of Mr. Krauthammer’s physical and intellectual shortcomings, this timeline inspection process was not going well at all at this point.  I’m not sure anyone can recover from the unintentional comedy of that first tweet, but I kept looking, and let’s just say, it didn’t get any better.  It was at this point that I read Mr. Widener’s full profile description which mentioned his conservative politics.  Things fell into place at this point.  That piece of the description was notably absent from the email I received.

This quick foray into the mind of a conservative got my thinking about leadership and conservatism and whether or not these two terms have much of a relationship.  Mr. Widener’s timeline does have some useful advice on personal responsibility and other success principles with which I wholeheartedly agree, but dispensing such nuggets is not leadership.  It’s education.  Is it possible he’s confusing the two?  To be honest, I didn’t delve any further into Mr. Widener’s work because quite frankly I couldn’t stomach it, but “Leadership Expert” does sound impressive and who doesn’t want to be a leader?  No wonder he has so many followers - just not me.

However, when I think of leadership, I think about having to deal with real life situations and getting a group of people through it in such a way that the whole benefits or at least comes out better for it.  Leadership addresses reality while modern day conservatism does its utmost to deny it.  At Conservatism's core is complete self-interest and when you look at who stands to benefit the most from the current conservative platform, you see pure greed from the nation’s most wealthy 2%.  They have no interest in leadership, only power.  They serve themselves and subject the rest of the population to a kind of social darwinism that seems completely ironic given the Republican Party’s total reluctance to believe in evolution.

When I consider the idea of conservative leadership, I struggle to think of even one person on the Right whom I would consider to be a great leader.  Leaders do the right thing, not what’s only in their self interest.  And when I refer to the “right thing”, I mean acting ethically.  Character traits such as respect, compassion, honesty, integrity, fairness, kindness are just a sampling of what great leaders actively display on a daily basis.  Name one conservative who demonstrates these traits - I can’t.

Responsibility

I find it somewhat humorous that Conservatives, who are always preaching personal responsibility, can do nothing but complain, whine and make excuses for why election results didn't go in their favor.  Isn't that behavior the exact opposite of what responsibility means?  Uh, yeah, it is.

In sports, we laugh and sometimes pity athletes who talk this way.  I suppose we should do that in politics as well.  Let's take the case of Mitt Romney.  Suggesting that he lost the election because Obama gave gifts to various groups of people proves beyond a doubt why he wasn't qualified to be President of the United States.  He didn't lose because of anything he did.  No.  Obama cheated and gave stuff to people so they would vote for him.

Please Mitt Romney, just go away and never enter our lives again.  If you were truly worthy of being President, you would take responsibility for your loss.  Own it like the man your followers thought you should be like.  Instead, you acted like the entitled little rich brat that many of us thought you were.

Two Questions to Help the Undecided Voter

While there are many complex and nuanced issues to consider in this election, I think there are two simple questions that can assist voters in selecting a Presidential candidate on Election Day.

1. Is money the most important thing in your life?
2. Do you make more than $200,000 per year?

If you answered "yes" to both of these questions, then Mitt Romney is your man.  Feel good about casting that ballot for him and enjoying lower taxes for the next 4 years, while the rest of the country continues to descend in to despair.  If you didn't answer "yes" to both questions, but are leaning toward Mr. Romney, then you are in all likelihood voting against your own interests.  Romney's policies only benefit people who answer "yes" to the above questions.

One caveat on the above - an Obama victory in November will very likely result in a "Grand Bargain" on Social Security and Medicate in 2013.  This is disturbing.  Ironically, a Romney victory might actually save Social Security and Medicare from cuts since Democrats would likely not cooperate with the Republicans effort to cut these earned benefits programs.

Geniuses

Jack Welch thinks the latest jobs report was cooked, and Donald Trump agrees with him.  Trump also thinks that the Yankees' Alex Rodriguez needs drugs to play better.  Why do we care what these people think?

Making money is a skill and there is no doubt that men like Welch and Trump are geniuses at it.  Their financial intelligence far exceeds that of the average person.  Intelligence in everything else?  Perhaps not so much.  Yet because our society worships money to such an extreme degree, people like Welch and Trump are sought after to provide their thoughts on a whole host of topics of which they know nothing.  We somehow equate financial genius with just pure genius.

To make my point, let's take the case of another skilled genius - Alex Rodriguez.  In baseball, A-Rod is one of the best players ever.  His baseball IQ is way above the average person's.  He has many adoring fans (as well as detractors).  Why aren't we asking him what he thinks of the jobs report?  Or the recent Presidential debate?  Is it that we recognize that baseball genius doesn't qualify him as an expert on everything else going on in the world?

Bottom line - I don't give a shit what Jack Welch and Donald Trump think.

Good People

I know that many of the people who are supporting Mitt Romney in the upcoming Presidential election are good people who want the best for their country.  They want America to be strong economically and a country they can be proud of on the international stage.  But when will these same people realize that today’s GOP has no interest in America?  For as much as conservatives use the idea of America to emotionally attach themselves to voters, their policies and proposals serve a small group of people who worship profit.  And that group of people doesn’t need an economy that serves all Americans.  It only needs one that serves them, and that’s the one we live in today; an economy in which large multi-national corporations have tons of cash and are generally prospering while many Americans struggle financially.

What would be their motivation to change the current conditions?  Answer:  there is none.  As long as corporations and the rich in this country can make money in this economic climate, there will be no improvement. In fact, things will only continue to get worse.  If Republican policies championed by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are put in place, deficit hysteria will drive our economy into the ground.  The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and economic and social mobility will continue to get worse.  Jobs will be lost here at home, but corporations will continue to prosper with their global markets and the fact that our own society has become consumption addicted.  We want gadgets and things even when we can’t afford them, and the marketing of these products convinces us that we need them.

There really isn’t a single good thing that Mitt Romney will do for the actual benefit of this country, but when will the average moderate Republican wake up and realize that?  A Romney presidency could make things very ugly in the next several years.  If it happens, settle back and watch the rich get richer at the expense of those who don’t have enough money to buy politicians.

Smells Like Teen Spirit and Remembering Kurt Cobain

I was listening to the radio earlier today and was reminded that this is the 17th anniversary of the death of Kurt Cobain. That factoid brought me back to the Fall of 1991 when Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was released. I don't exactly remember the first time that I heard the song, but I do remember the first time I really "heard" the song, if you get my drift. I was driving home from the Attleboro, MA train station in my 1987 Honda Civic back in the days when I worked in Boston at Shawmut Bank. At some point on Rte. 152 on my trek home, the song came on the radio, and I recall paying special attention to it because it was different. The lyrics weren't especially meaningful, however the sound itself was new to my ears. For me, it alternated between rage and sophistication, but in a coherent way. It truly was the song "that started it all" with respect to modern alternative music. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" paved the way for a new era of bands and brought alternative music into the mainstream like never before. Every time I hear it on the radio, it reminds me of that day in '91 and I smile to myself knowing that this song was the song that started it all.

Thank you Kurt, and thank you Nirvana. We miss you.

The Descent

While politicians do nothing but play politics (see here for an example of what I'm talking about), the country descends into a further mess. A "No Compromise" strategy from the Republicans (as dictated by their leader, Rush Limbaugh) ought to tell the American people that the GOP has no interest in doing anything to help the country. They simply want to be in power to serve the super-wealthy and their corporate masters. And as we dither around, the world passes us by. How does it feel to be a citizen in a country on the way down?

Keith Olbermann on the Tea Party and Election Day

Keith Olbermann had an informative Special Comment on MSNBC last night detailing the strange and sometimes dangerous views of Tea Party candidates. Not only do we have to vote next Tuesday to try to prevent this disaster from happening, but we also need to convince other sane individuals to not vote for these Tea Party candidates. Ignorance is not a virtue.

Take 20 minutes and listen to what Keith has to say:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39875964/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

Health Care Reform and the Big Picture

While it looks like Health Care Reform may be passed today, it’s important to understand that this bill is only the first step in improving this situation in the United States. The bill is by no means perfect, and the politics around it have been absolutely vicious, but it is an important event in our history because it bucks the trend of privatization and corporatism that conservatives have been pushing since Ronald Reagan. Doing something for the common good is not evil, regardless of what the lunatic fringe at Fox Propaganda may be broadcasting 24/7.

So the real work is now just beginning. Democrats and Progressives must remain strong as opponents of HCR will become more and more vicious in their attacks, saying anything to derail this initiative. This is a fight for the hearts and minds of Americans as privatization and corporatism have been disastrous for this country. This is an opportunity to prove that a government can be beneficial in the lives of its citizens. This is an opportunity to reverse the brainwashing that has many Americans thinking it’s acceptable to spit on members of Congress and verbally attack 11 year old children. This is an opportunity to stand up and say that unfettered greed is not good.

If we are to compete with the likes of China in the 21st century, we must come together as a team, as a society. Today, we are too fractured and we can’t get anything done because we aren’t focused on the work we need to do to make our lives better. Our government is distracted by unproductive wars. Our people are apathetic and ignorant of our dire circumstances. America is on the decline, yet we don’t know it. Perhaps I’m attaching a bit more importance to this Health Care bill than most, but I think it’s the first rung on a ladder out of a huge hole that’s been dug in the last 30 years. Let’s see how far up the ladder we can get in the next 5 years.

Glenn Beck attacks the Commie Pinko Liberal Atheist!

Media 101 - Stenography?

Here is a copy of an email I sent to CNN this morning regarding the "Exclusive" they had with John McCain and Joe Lieberman this morning on State of the Union with John King.

Advertising an "exclusive" with John McCain and Joe Lieberman is like hyping a sale at WalMart. Both happen every week. Those 2 are on all the time pushing one side of the aisle's point of view - bottomless pit of money for war, nothing available for health care, don't reform Wall St. How about asking Alan Grayson to appear on your show to provide counterpoint rather than simply playing stenographer to their dangerous narrative?

It's no wonder that there are so many Americans out there who think the Republicans actually represent a viable solution to governing the country. They're allowed to push their bullshit rhetoric on us continually without fact checking through programming on the major networks like State of the Union on CNN. Is stenography now a substitute for journalism? It's become dangerous to the future of this country because people hear these views so often, they start to believe them even when facts (pesky little things) disprove them. I wonder if these television media members feel any responsibility to truth or are they simply caught up in being faux celebrities who get to mingle with the powerful of this country. Of course, there's no money in speaking truth to power.

Related Example: George Stephanopoulos allows Rudy Giuliani to say "no domestic attacks under Bush" without comment on Good Morning America. Giuliani tries to clarify later in the day on CNN, but still gets it wrong.

Unlearning The Lessons Of Childhood

As someone who has several nephews and a niece under the age of 11, I have seen the struggle of parents to teach their children one of the most basic human lessons - sharing. Most children don't gravitate toward sharing straightaway, but eventually the lesson sinks in even if it is only for an hour or two. But why do we even bother to teach our children to share in modern day America? Isn't sharing the exact opposite of what we preach to other adults and for that matter, other nations?

"Greed is good" is a popular quote from the 1987 movie Wall Street, but instead of just a quote it has become a mantra for the powerful and wealthy. It has led us to believe that the accumulation of wealth is the most important thing in our lives and that we shouldn't share that wealth with anyone including our fellow Americans. Talk of government programs, social services, assistance for the poor is scoffed at as un-American, socialist, big government spending nonsense. In fact, those programs are downright evil. Thus we have entered the age of Corporatism and Privatization.

But was America always this way? Was America always a "lookout for number one" kind of society? The answer is no and you need only go back to the first half of the twentieth century for examples when people and government acted for the common good. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal was an effort to bring relief to a country in the ravages of the Great Depression. Numerous government programs were created to bring relief to the poor as well as regulate the machinations of capitalism. FDR also asked Americans to sacrifice for the nation's war effort in World War II and Americans responded in kind.

The thought of such sweeping reform and sacrifice for the common good in today's America sounds ridiculous. Even universal health care is branded as "socialized medicine" with the insinuation that socialism is evil. Yet American society is approaching a tipping point in which the gap between the wealthy and the poor is increasingly vast and may become irreversible. Our society could be permanently fractured if this discrepancy in income levels is allowed to continue unabated. Unfortunately, creating this gap has been the strategy of Republicans since the rise of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and is in full bloom today under the watch of President Bush. And because of the brainwashing that the current generation of Americans has gone through believing that government is bad and socialism is evil, even a Democratic hopeful like Barack Obama may not be able to change how we think as a nation.

The question is will we realize in time that in order to be a great country, we must first be a great society? And in order to be a great society, we will at times have to do things for the common good. That brings us back to the lesson of sharing that we were all taught at one point in our lives. Is it possible for adults to re-learn that lesson or will the errors of free market capitalism and privatization continue to reign? Maybe we should let children show us the way.

Bizarro World Politics - 2/10/08

In today's America, I'm often struck by the nature of political events and decisions as being the exact opposite of what one would think as the right thing to do. In this way, America has become a Bizarro World of itself and its purported ideals. On paper, our nation supports concepts like freedom, democracy and human rights. In practice, those concepts are merely slogans used to achieve ends that have nothing to do with freedom, democracy or human rights.

Since we now live in our own Bizarro World, I'm starting a new installment of posts in which I highlight stories and events that are truly the opposite of American ideals. In our first installment, I have three selections.

From Think Progress, former US Attorney General John Ashcroft made a speech yesterday in which he declared that President Bush has respected civil liberties in a time of war more than any other president. TP further notes that this declaration comes directly after this story in which President Bush allowed the Civil Liberties Oversight Board to go vacant. Perhaps Mr. Ashcroft was thinking of these paradoxical court decisions in which detainees at Guantanomo were deemed to have no rights, yet corporations are now afforded human rights.

Remember SCHIP and President Bush's veto of its expansion? As if that decision wasn't bizarre enough, now we have House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) bragging about it as an "accomplishment" of Congressional conservatives in 2007. Once again, Think Progress has the details.

And finally, Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone Magazine tells us about the Chicken Doves of the Democratic Party and their true focus. Guess what? It's not ending the war in Iraq as we all hoped it would be. On that topic, they're full of excuses as to why a majority party in both Houses of Congress can't get anything done. This is a truly infuriating read.

The Shock Doctrine - Just Starting

I just started reading Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine and within the first 100 pages, I've become more convinced than ever that unregulated free market economies as the silver bullet for economic woes represents an overly simplistic and child-like view of the world. It's akin to explaining physics as it works in a vacuum and then claiming that's how it will work in the real world. Well guess what? The world isn't a vacuum and neither is the global economy.

Let's call free market economic theory for what it really is - corporatism. Corporations are the only real winners in this economy and their interests supersede those of a nation and its people. And through the institution of free market economies, the lexicon of economic and political terms has changed in order to slant the discussion in favor of these failed policies. How else does one explain universal health care characterized as "socialized medicine"? By equating any measure with some social value as "socialist" it immediately demonizes it in the eyes of the American public.

The American patriotism of neo-conservatives is a paradox. They are extremely proud of America to the point of "my country - right or wrong", but are vehemently against social programs designed to better American society. Endorsing individual selfishness and greed as the tenets of a sound economy is a self defeating strategy that will ultimately destroy American society. Will America wake up to this reality before it's too late?

Why We Fight - Part 2

In Part 1 of this post, we explored some of the many reasons that the United States inserts itself militarily into world affairs. That favored approach to foreign policy is essentially a top-down methodology in which the US interacts with a regime at the government/state level and the effects of that interaction eventually flow down to the people of that country. There are numerous examples from the last hundred years that show this methodology to be flawed and Iraq is only the latest instance. The policy of doing what is right for American interests, and the rest of the world be damned, has not achieved the goals that so many thought it would, namely security and prosperity.

Is there an alternative to fighting wars for US capitalism? An alternative that could not only serve the interests of Americans, but for the rest of the world too? I believe there is and it calls for a bottom-up approach to foreign policy that eschews the status quo needs of corporations. Deal with the people of the world directly. Do not interfere or topple their governments. This doesn't mean we should help people overthrow their governments - it means we should help them improve their lives by becoming healthier and more prosperous, and being sincere in our approach. In other words, a selfless approach to foreign policy. You're probably thinking "wow, this is really pie in the sky stuff." I know, but I'm an idealist and clearly not grounded in reality!

One could argue that the United States already has several government programs that are modeled on this approach. While that is true to an extent, these programs don't represent the focal point of US foreign policy. They also aren't entirely selfless as they are often sponsored by the interests of pharmaceutical companies and oil companies, and thus benefit those entities over the people they purport to help.

The likelihood of such a foreign policy focus coming to fruition is low. Case in point is demonstrated by this article from the Washington Post describing how a report from the US Surgeon General was blocked for political reasons. According to the Post:

The report described the link between poverty and poor health, urged the U.S. government to help combat widespread diseases as a key aim of its foreign policy, and called on corporations to help improve health conditions in the countries where they operate.

This sounds exactly like the kind of focus I was calling for, yet it's been blocked by a bureaucrat with long standing ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney because the document wasn't political. And that is the crux of the problem. Everything must be political in Washington today. If a program doesn't concern itself with keeping Bush and Republicans in power, then it isn't a program worth doing. Maintaining power is at the top of the priority list; somewhere down around 900 on that list is doing the right thing for the world.

Yet doing the right thing for the world might ultimately be the best thing for America. World perception of the US would be far more favorable and our credibility would be restored. Too bad it will never happen.

To Impeach Or Not To Impeach?

I'm currently reading Glenn Greenwald's "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good Versus Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency" and it's become even more apparent to me that President Bush must go sooner rather than later. Greenwald's main premise is that the Bush Presidency views all things in a good and evil mentality, and that all decisions are based on this binary system. You are either Good or you are Evil. There is no middle ground and there are no other motivations for actions other than these two simple choices. It's difficult to disagree with the premise as you hear these very words in nearly every speech the president delivers where he puts himself and America squarely on the side of Good in the eternal battle against Evil.

What is beyond frightening is that the leader of the most militarily powerful nation in the world is so much of a simpleton that he believes that Good and Evil are the only forces at work in the world, and hence bases all of his decisions on this black and white criteria. And by placing himself on the side of Good, he is justified in taking any action, including violation of long established laws and usurping powers never intended for the Executive Branch, in his crusade against Evil. By doing so, Mr. Bush has created the paradox of protecting our way of life by systematically destroying it. According to his actions, freedoms and protections afforded to the American people by the Constitution are now luxuries we can no longer afford in the battle against Evil. To an educated person, this makes absolutely no sense at all. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is not an educated man and he is incapable of any serious reflection on the impact of his decisions on America and the world at large. He simply continues along in his mission against Evil, and believing that we, the American people, do not understand his place in history.

In the midst of all of this, the Democratic leadership in the US Congress has been making some effort to end the war in Iraq with lackluster results. An obstructionist Republican minority and several Democrats of the Republican-lite variety have made this legislative body an unfortunate bystander in the course of history that Mr. Bush has selected for America. Still, the Democratic leadership can't see the forest for the trees. They treat the Iraq war as the only issue on the table, and while it is very important, they are missing the bigger picture. Mr. Bush's vision for a new world order goes beyond Iraq. It goes beyond Iran. It is a global struggle of Good versus Evil and America's place in that struggle. Congress must wake up and deal with this. And the only way to do that is to deal with Mr. Bush himself. He must be removed from office as soon as humanly possible. Every day that he remains in office, his decisions continually damage the world and America's place in it.

While there has been more of a groundswell of public support for the impeachment of the president, there is little to no momentum for this in Congress. Why is that? Well, I received two answers to that question from my own Congressional representative - one explicit answer and one implied. The explicit answer was that "Congress should focus on putting an end to the war." I agree that that is a focus that Congress should have, but as stated above, it's only part of the problem. It also suggests to me that Congress can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Why can't impeachment and efforts to stop the Iraq war go on simultaneously? In fact, impeaching the president would probably greatly assist in ending the war in Iraq as well as his stopping his Good versus Evil approach to world affairs. Seems like a win-win situation to me.

However, the real reason we aren't seeing any movement on impeachment by lawmakers is starkly revealed by this quote from my representative - "Unlike my Republican counterparts, I do not take the act of impeachment lightly." And there it is as plain as day for anyone to see. The Democrats are so afraid that the Conservative spin machine will say that they are politicizing the impeachment process because that is exactly what the Republicans did to Bill Clinton in 1998. If the shoe were on the other foot, do you think the Republicans would hesitate to impeach a Democratic president under these same circumstances? Of course not - we'd be knee deep in impeachment procedures right now. Yet the Democrats are more concerned with how they will be perceived rather than the fate of the nation. That's sad because now they have a perception problem among those people who should be their base, like me. It's simple cowardice, and our nation will pay for it through the continuation of Mr. Bush's legacy. He will continue to apply his simplistic world view on all his decisions. He will continue to break the law in the name of Good versus Evil. He will continue to bleed this country dry of able young men and financial resources. And finally, he will continue to destroy America's legacy and its place in the world. To impeach or not to impeach? That is the question, and the answer is rather obvious to me.