So, gas prices’ll drop, right?

According to a news report from Forbes online: “US oil giants Chevron/Texaco and Exxon/Mobil have made a major oil discovery in the West African island state of Sao Tome and Principe. …Drilling results showed the hole could be holding more than a billion barrels worth of oil and gas.”

It seems that every time there is a report of political instability in an oil producing state, or there is a problem with the Alaska oil pipeline, or some refinery has had to shutdown for maintenance purposes, that within days --- if not hours --- the price of gas at my local pump jumps a nickel or so. Even though it takes weeks for the oil from one of these sources to actually reach my pump in the form of finished gasoline…

So, with this great news about a major new oil find off of Africa, I can expect to see a nickel drop in the price of gas at my local pump soon, right? Well no, because you need to understand it takes a long time for oil in the ground to reach my pump as finished gasoline…

George Bush, The Would-Be Despot

My Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary offers the following definitions:

- Would-be: desiring, professing or having the potential to be

- Despot: a ruler with absolute power and authority; a person exercising power abusively

Charlie Savage, writing for The Globe, reported on March 24 that after President Bush signed legislation renewing the PATRIOT Act, “the White House quietly issued a 'signing statement,’ an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

“(In the signing statement) Bush wrote: ‘The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch…’”

In other words, the President intends to interpret the law they way he sees fit…

In other words, the President (once gain) claims he is above the law…

In other words, George Bush is a would-be despot.

Hypocrisy (once again) reigns

From today’s online New York Times: "The tradition in this country of a law enforcement agency that had absolute power over people, we've got to break them of that. I think it'll take years. You can't change a cultural mind-set overnight.” Maj. Andrew Creel commenting on training Iraqi security forces in proper treatment of detainees.

Hmmm. It seems that law enforcement having “absolute power over people” is not a good thing in other countries, but apparently it's OK here (the PATRIOT Act, for example) as long as it's in the name of national security.

A blinding revelation for Bill Frist

From an article in today’s edition of The Hill: “In an e-mail to political supporters yesterday, (Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist) blasted Democrats for offering budget amendments to increase spending.

“’The Democrat alternative to Republican efforts to restrain spending is clear: Continue to spend beyond our means, mortgaging our children’s future by saddling them with a debt of $8 trillion … and continue to ratchet up taxes to pay for their fiscal irresponsibility, stifling the American economy,’ Frist wrote.”

Bill, Dave has a blinding revelation for you, just in case you’ve somehow missed this rather significant fact:

THE REPUBLICANS, YOUR PARTY, IS AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS IN COMPLETE CONTROL OF BOTH THE HOUSE OR REPRESENTAIVES AND THE SENATE. IF WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ARE $8 TRILLION IN DEBT, IT IS YOU REPUBLICANS PUT US THERE!

As I’ve said before, and I have no doubt wills ay again, what so incenses me is that you apparently think I am so stupid that I will actually believe your lies!

Good news / Bad news

President Bush, according to today’s New York Times, gave a speech yesterday in which he told the story of Tal Afar, a city in Northern Iraq where a massive effort by U.S. and Iraqi forces drove out the insurgents and terrorists. (By the way, did you ever notice how Bush always uses those terms interchangeably, when, in fact, they are not? But that’s a different discussion…) Apparently Mr. Bush wants us to focus on Tal Afar as some ”good news” that we are supposedly winning the peace in Iraq.

But that would be a little like your doctor telling you the “good news” is he’s mended the cut you got on your finger while slicing the cucumbers for your salad, but forgetting to mention the advanced cancer that’s eating at your insides.

The Times went on to say about the speech: “Mr. Bush appeared relaxed throughout, and in a question about Iraq segued to Iran. ‘The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel,’ he said, adding, ‘I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.’" (Emphasis added)

And of course that’s the bad news, in fact, the really bad news. Because once again he has told us what his real plan is: To save his Presidency, he wants to invade Iran. All of his other policies and plans are falling down around him, the only thing he has left to fall back on is his war mongering.

Unfortunately, he can’t even do war right!

Fool me once: Part Two

Here is the lead from an Associated Press story dated today: “Undaunted by the difficult war in Iraq, President Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.”

Hmmm… Sounds strangely familiar. You fooled us once with your phony justifications for the invasion of Iraq, but you’re not going to fool us again…

Clinton bites back?

Whenever something negative comes up about George Bush, my conservative friends (I use the term loosely) love to change the subject, “Well, Bill Clinton did … (blah, blah, blah).” At one and the same time I am both outraged at the Republicans disingenuous indignation over efforts to censure George Bush and amused by the fact that their own arguments for impeaching Clinton may yet come back to haunt them.

After Clinton’s imbroglio in the White House, and the fact that he fibbed about it under oath, the Republicans’ indignation knew no bounds --- “the U.S. is a nation of laws and the President is not above the law” they piously pronounced as they gleefully went out “impeaching” Clinton.

George Bush ignored the law about surveillance of American citizens without warrant, he admitted he did it, basically said he was proud of it and further said he would do it again, all justified by his personal “Get Out Of Jail” card, national security.

That George Bush acted above the law and said he was above the law is a fact. A fact confirmed by the Republican efforts to offer legislation that would make what he did legal after the fact --- if what Bush did wasn’t illegal, then why do you need to change the law?

If Bill Clinton was not above the law, then neither is George Bush. Period. There is no clause I am aware of in the Constitution that says the President needs to obey the law just like everyone else “except” in the name of national security or “except” when he (or she) feels they can ignore it.

For the very same reasons Bill Clinton deserved impeachment, George Bush at least deserves censure. As much as you’d like to Republicans, you can’t have it both ways.

Fool me once…

…it’s on you; fool me twice it’s on me.

Last year the Republicans tried at the last minute to slip into a budget bill a clause that would have allowed members of the Congressional budget committee the ability to inspect anyone’s tax records merely by request, apparently hoping no one would notice. But their shell game was noticed and they immediately backed away from the clause, of course, pleading that snooping was never their intent.

Now Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, has offered legislation that would make legal after the fact what President Bush has been doing illegally (eavesdropping on Americans). A provision in the bill seems to say that any reporter who writes anything about government surveillance could face prosecution, including fines up to a million dollars and serious jail time. In other words official censorship of the press

Yes, a staffer for DeWine has said that muzzling the press was never the intent and that a “technical fix” on the proposed legislation was probably necessary.

Just an innocent error that can be fixed? Or yet another Republican Constitution-flouting power grab they hoped no one would notice? Fool me once…

Another "phony" issue

Here’s the lead from an article in today’s online New York Times: “As prospective Republican presidential candidates search for themes to distinguish their prospective campaigns, and distance themselves from the embattled incumbent in the White House, they appear to be in agreement on what one central issue should be in 2008: Curbing the federal spending that has soared under President Bush.”

Let’s see, what has the “federal spending” been going for? How about the botched war in Iraq. How about the blank checks for Haliburton? How about the massive subsidy for drug companies called Medicare Part D? Too name just a few... Let’s see if any of these will be on the Republican’s agenda for spending that needs to be “curbed.”

Of course, what is most noteworthy is what they did NOT say, which is that the real reason for the massive federal deficit is the obscene tax cuts to the rich and corporations. You can bet no Republican will suggest rolling these back.

Another "phony" Republican issue. Or is it another issue from "phony" Republicans? Either way...

A Foolish Consistency

Mr. Bush likes to portray himself as this committed and self-directed --- oh, sorry, I forget, he is only acting according to God’s instructions (which, of course, has been the fall back position of despots for millennia, but that’s a different discussion) --- leader who knows what is best and will not be dissuaded from his course by criticism (like card-carrying conservatives who are starting to say enough is enough) or a lack of support (that is, nose-diving public opinion polls).

Which always reminds me of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s comment: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

I do not trust George W. Bush

Mr. Bush wants us to trust him on the Dubai ports deal --- his people have checked this out, he says, and it’s okay. He wants us to trust him on domestic spying --- even though he admits he went beyond the law, we should be reassured that he will only eavesdrop on terrorists or their contacts. {By the way, I wonder if that includes the alleged 50,000 tenured U.S. professors that David Horowitz thinks are terrorist sympathizers?) He wants us to trust him, rather than that nasty media, and believe things are really much better in Iraq than they seem to be. In other words, there are lots of specific reasons why I do not trust George W. Bush.

However, there is another even more important reason I don’t trust George W. Bush. It’s because I don’t trust anyone in power, especially political power. Indeed, the so-called Founding Fathers of our country, the folks who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, particularly the latter, felt the same way.

They assumed that political power would be abused. Why? Because just about every political regime in history has abused its power in one way or another. The Founding Fathers remembered well the histories of their native countries --- the kings that had exercised capricious absolute power, the parliaments that had gone out of control, the religious majorities who had persecuted those whose beliefs weren’t in line with theirs.

In other words, the Founding fathers were, rightly so, afraid of too much political power.

The Declaration of Independence is a manifesto declaring just that point. The Declaration is about a political regime that had abused its power, at least in the view of the Founding Fathers.

The U.S. Constitution that the Founding Fathers hammered out with much agonizing is about limiting political power. Its carefully crafted system of checks and balances between the three branches of government are specifically intended to limit the powers of government.

Maybe George W. Bush can be trusted --- although I personally doubt it, but that’s neither here nor there, because this isn’t just about George W. Bush --- with so much political power. But even if he can be trusted, his successors, whoever they might be, cannot be trusted. Because sooner or later a right we give up today in good faith will be used against us. It’s inevitable.

Lord Acton, the British historian, said it perfectly: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”

When is enough enough?

When is enough chipping away at what it means to be an American enough? Tthe rationale goes something like this: Times have changed different ya know, maybe we gotta give up some rights in order to be safe.

Yesterday I talked about the Missouri legislator who introduced a resolution to make Christianity the official religion of that state. Can anyone explain to me what that has to do with national security?

Yesterday I talked about how Bill O’Reilly literally threatened a critical caller to his radio show with retribution by local police. Wow, I feel much safer from the threat of terrorists knowing that Bill O’Reilly thinks local police will help him silence critics. Isn’t that how Hitler and Stalin and Saddam Hussein used their police departments?

Today we find out the American military is blocking access to certain websites by soldiers. They are blocking so-called liberal sites like Wonkette, Air America radio and the Al Franken Show. But soldiers have unrestricted access to the websites of conservatives like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy Show. Yes, I support my brave American troops who are over there risking their lives to protect my freedoms from the threat of terrorists. I’m certainly glad that I don’t live under a repressive regime like Iran and China, where they try to control what their people think.

When is enough enough?

Crackpots as portents of the future

Malcolm Gladwell, in his book The Tipping Point, argues we should keep on aye on what society usually dismisses as its crackpots as one way to predict future trends. He presents several case studies in which folks on the fringes were the forerunners of societal or fashion fads. So with that in mind…

It seems that some legislators in Missouri have offered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion. The resolution would recognize "a Christian god;" it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs." Under the bill only Christianity receives what the resolution calls "justified recognition."

The other day on his radio show Bill O’Reilly warned a caller who was critical that the security people at Fox News, which produces his show, has his phone number and that if he ever tried to call in again, the security people at Fox would be contacting the caller’s local police authorities who would pay him a visit.

Oh well, I can hear folks rationalizing, these are just crackpots… Those Missouri legislators don’t represent the mainstream of Christianity; Bill O’Reilly doesn’t represent the mainstream of America. Perhaps… Or perhaps the fact that these actually had the insolence to say what they did should scare us more than a little. What if they are indeed harbingers of things to come?

Again, I think back to the bumper sticker: “If your not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

From today's New York Times:

Alito's Note to Evangelist Is Called Just Thanks

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, March 1 — In his first weeks on the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. sent a note to Dr. James C. Dobson, the influential Christian conservative, thanking him for his support and vowing that "as long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me," Dr. Dobson said Wednesday in a radio broadcast.

Kathy Arberg, a spokeswoman for the court, said Justice Alito had written the note in response to a letter of congratulations from Dr. Dobson. "The justice has responded to scores of congratulatory letters from people of all walks of life, and he has included as a standard sentiment in the letters the hope that he will live up to the trust and confidence that has been placed in him," Ms. Arberg said.

Right! And the fucking moon really is made out of green cheese! What makes me so angry is your assumption that I am so stupid that I actually believe you.

I wonder…

…what happened to all of the “political capital” President Bush claimed he had after the last election? Maybe it was just an illusion after all.

…what would happen if you took speeches by Ann Coulter and each time you found a reference to Democrat or Liberal you replaced it with nigger or spick or kike or some other ethnic slur? Maybe we would recognize it for the despicable hate mongering it is.

…what it would feel like if I were to try on for a change the total black / white, all of nothing, “you’re either with me or against me” mentality of the Bush right? Hmmm… How about this one? George W. Bush is not a Christian. If he is for torturing people, then he cannot be a Christian. Period; end of discussion. The Bible, which President Bush allegedly follows, is about love and forgiveness and understanding and turning the other cheek --- or at least the one I grew up with is --- and I don’t remember a single passage that justifies torturing other human beings --- but see, that’s the real problem here, as George Bush doesn’t see what he’s condoning as “torture,” so he sees no inconsistency with his so-called Christian values. But then hypocrites, by definition, never see inconsistencies in their positions, do they?