Does the idiot cowboy have a hidden agenda?

Is President George Bush’s apparent ineptitude a true reflection of his abilities, or is it a carefully crafted smokescreen meant to conceal a hidden agenda? Because Duhbya is devious, duplicitous, disingenuous, and an accomplished liar, we might never know the truth.

If we take a close look at Bush’s accomplishments during the five-plus years he’s been in office, we find that nearly all of them fall on the negative side of the ledger.

While his misbegotten Iraq adventure succeeded in toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime, Bush has yet to reveal a viable plan for pulling our troops out of Iraq. In the meantime, he’s all but given up on the hunt for Osama bin Laden, and he’s threatening to launch an invasion of Iran using what amounts to the same pretexts as those used to justify the Iraq invasion. Evidently, one disaster wasn’t enough.

9/11 is Bush’s mantra, his scapegoat for every bad decision he’s made. “9/11” is to Bush as “Denny Crane” is to Denny Crane. Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. He’s used it as justification for awarding no-bid contracts, for conducting surveillance on American citizens, for weakening Constitutional protections.

As much as I wish it were not so, the more I study the evidence the more I believe that 9/11 was an inside job. There are just too many inconsistencies, too many coincidences and too many unlikely events happening within the context of 9/11 for it to be otherwise.

With the federal budget deficit and the national debt at unprecedented levels and spiraling out of control, with government, businesses and individual citizens living on credit, and with home prices skyrocketing and jobs fleeing overseas, the U.S. economy seems to be caught crosswise in the asshole of global trade.

That Bush has done nothing to help achieve energy independence, address numerous environmental problems, or deal successfully with myriad domestic social issues only increases their severity and raises the costs of dealing with them in the future.

Bush’s failed policies put future generations of Americans at risk. Not only will they be saddled with the obligation of repaying this enormous debt, but they’ll also be living in a less secure world while they do it.

If our President’s many screw-ups result from mere incompetence, then history will surely judge him as an oaf, a doofus, a fool, a bungling, bumbling idiot.

But, what if George Duhbya Bush’s real intentions are to bring down the US of A, because it’s one of the few remaining impediments to a New World Order? If that’s his real agenda, then history will judge him an astounding success. Our country teeters on the brink of disaster, and it won’t take much to topple it over the edge.

The Dixie Chick, Natalie Maines, got it right! She should take back her apology to President Bush. She doesn’t owe him one. It’s Duhbya who owes an apology to the rest of us.

Failed Policy Builds Better Attitudes

As a subscriber to a number of online activist group newsletters, I often take advantage of opportunities to sign petitions or send e-mail to various political or corporate leaders on behalf of worthy causes. The Marijuana Policy Project, Drug Policy Alliance, NARAL Pro-choice, DefCon, and Biofuels4Oregon are just a few of the organizations with which I engage in political activism.

Normally, I’ll get behind any movement that favors protecting the environment or wildlife, preserving civil rights and liberties, or legalizing drugs. Generally, I oppose drilling for oil in the ANWR, lower taxes for the wealthy, and televised basketball games lasting longer than an hour.

When the DPA sent out their newsletter on May 18, soliciting my participation in helping to stop the ONDCP from spending taxpayers’ money on those disingenuous anti-marijuana ads one so frequently sees on television, I was eager to make it a done deal.

However, as I read DPA’s arguments for blocking the ads, I came to this paragraph (quoted in its entirety directly from the DPA newsletter), which caused me to rethink my position:

“As you may know, five government studies have found that the ads have not reduced marijuana use - and two of the studies found that the ads might make some teenagers more likely to start using marijuana. Now, a new study by two researchers at Texas State University-San Marcos finds that 18- to 19-year-old college students who view the TV ads develop more positive attitudes towards marijuana than those who do not.”

Pay particular attention to the second sentence in that paragraph. Excuse me? Isn’t that what we want? Wouldn’t more people developing more positive attitudes towards marijuana hasten its legalization?

Even though the ONDCP anti-marijuana ad campaign is backfiring big time, I can’t wrap my mind around the idea that it’s an enormous waste of taxpayers’ money. In fact, I think it’s a case of the taxpayers’ money being exceptionally well spent. With results like this, we can probably expect to see marijuana legalized within the next year or two.

So, with that in mind, rather than endorse the letter to block the ads, I’m going to send the ONDCP a large contribution to help them run more ads.

Heh! Heh! Just kidding!

Loosen the corporate grip!

Ours is a government of the people, by the people, for the people? Yeah, right! Not since a bunch of corrupt Supreme Court Justices decided that corporations were entitled to the same rights that are guaranteed to individual citizen under the Constitution, anyway.

Now, what we have is a government of the people, by the corporations, for wealthy corporate investors. Yeah, it’s that bad, but what did you think would happen when corporations were given the power to take over the government? Did you really expect them to let a golden opportunity like that slip away?

Maybe it’s time for citizens to take back control of the government rather than allow corporations to maintain control. Commercial interests have a stranglehold on the national economy, on national politics, on the global environment. They’ve proven, on numerous occasions, that their only allegiance is to the corporate bottom line. They’ve proven, time and again, their willingness to sacrifice, on the twin altars of money and power, the essentials of well being for the illusion of well being.

How to wrest power away from entities that have controlled so much for so long remains the big question. Is it even doable? Maybe, but only if enough citizens take enough interest in the political processes that control every aspect of their lives and demand that enough politicians take enough appropriate actions to effect meaningful change.

Maybe the answer lies not in revoking corporate Constitutional rights but by achieving true parity between corporations and individuals by giving them all the rights and responsibilities of individuals, not just the ones that work to their advantage.

If corporations had to achieve 18 years of age, from the date of their inception, before they could enter into contracts or make major financial decisions, it would probably have a dampening effect on corporate activities. Corporations should also face mandatory retirement at age 65 and automatic death at age 75. It's ludicrous to give corporations the rights enjoyed by individual citizens and endow them with immortality, too.

Tax corporate stockholders at individual income tax rates. Hold them liable for any damage the corporation does on their behalf. Limit corporate CEO pay to no more than 20 times the amount paid to the lowest-paid corporate employee.

Finally, get rid of the lobbyists and take away corporate ability to fund political campaigns and influence government policy. Corporations are in business to make widgets, not run the damned government.

When the oil runs out . . .

Americans, either in extreme denial or just plain ignorance about the effects of the “Great American Dream” lifestyle on global environments and economies, continue their profligate ways as if the good times could roll on forever. Few of them think about the consequences of global warming-induced climate changes, or how deeply the coming oil shortages will impact their lives.

What can I—or anyone else—say or do to get their attention? Probably nothing! Can anyone make them understand that the threat is real, that it’s serious, and that failure to plan now will only exacerbate the problems later on? Probably not!

Few people realize that society in 2050 will more closely resemble that which existed in 1850 than it will society as it existed in 1950. I’ve seen many good reasons why this should be so, and no credible evidence that it should be otherwise.

Have you ever wondered what the world will be like after the oil runs out? Have you ever stopped to consider just how much every aspect of your life depends on oil? Without oil, will you still be able to get to and from work? Can your job exist without oil?

Everything near and dear to the American way of life depends, directly or indirectly, on oil. When the oil disappears, so too will the comfort and ease and all the things in your life that an abundance of oil made possible.

Are you capable of growing your own food? You’ll have to, you know, unless you can coerce a generous neighbor into growing it for you. Without oil, Big Agriculture won’t be able to grow or harvest crops, or ship produce to processors or markets. There’ll be no way to transport manufactured goods, in the quantities we’ve needed and come to rely on, over long distances.

Without oil, the global economy will collapse, as will stock markets, real estate values and banks. Many governments, too, will fail, and life in civilized countries will seem a little less civilized.

In a future that’s closer than anyone thinks, self-sufficiency and sustainability are the keys to survival. Are you prepared to survive? Or do you even care?

The leisure class has the working class surrounded!

One of the reasons I’m such an ardent fan of fiction is that writers of said fiction generally manage to integrate little nuggets of wisdom into their stories, often in unexpected but always delightful ways. I’ve come to think of these valuable nuggets as learning tools, something to expand my knowledge or at least help me to see reality from a new perspective.

Last night, as I was reading Free Fall, a compelling page-turner of a novel by Kyle Mills, an author previously unknown to me, I came across this priceless gem: There’s a leisure class at both ends of the social spectrum.

It took a few moments for the truth of that simple statement to sink in, and when it did I realized I’d never before given the matter so much as even one brain cell’s worth of critical thought. But yes, Mills is absolutely right; there is a leisure class at each end of the social spectrum.

At the upper end you have the idle rich, who survive on a mixture of greed, power and, more often than we like to imagine, ill-gotten gains. People at this end of the spectrum don’t have to work. They let their money do the work. It’s the capitalist’s version of “let your fingers do the walking.” Hey! There’s no point in lifting a finger if you don’t have to.

The leisure class at the lower end of the social spectrum consists of the idle poor, an underclass of citizens who can’t work, or, for whatever reasons, choose not to. Sometimes it’s a matter of taking the road less traveled, or of following the course of least resistance, and sometimes it’s a matter of having no choice at all.

Caught between these two leisure classes is the working class, but that’s to be expected. Somebody’s got to do the work.

A Plea for Sensible Laws

Someone (I think it was Robert A. Heinlein) once wrote that whenever you pass a new law you create a new class of criminals. There’s a great deal of wisdom in this thought, and it should inspire all of us to be careful what we wish for in regards to legislation.

Law is necessary in a civil society to maintain order and preserve the commonwealth. Wise laws are the wise servants of the people, but only laws that apply equally to all members of society should make it into the books or be allowed to remain on the books. Frivolous, regressive, repressive and purely punitive laws should be immediately stricken from the books and banished forever.

Prime examples are the laws prohibiting marijuana. Laws that punish one group of people at the expense of a second group of people for the benefit of a third group of people are not just laws. They are laws of tyranny and oppression that make a mockery of justice and damage society far more than they benefit it.

Striking anti-marijuana laws from the books would serve society in a myriad of important ways; achieving energy independence, building a stable, sustainable economy, protecting the environment, saving taxpayers money, and freeing up jail space to incarcerate dangerous criminals are among the most obvious.

If we really need to have stupid laws on the books, let’s consider a law making it illegal for people not to know how to find Iraq on a world globe. Punishment for violating such a law could be a two-year tour of duty in Iraq, courtesy of the U.S. Army.

Not only would this solve the military’s enlistment problems, but it would also give incentive for students to learn their geography lessons. Best of all, it wouldn’t cost the taxpayers an arm and a leg to fund it.

Slinging mud and other campaign b.s.

As the primary elections draw near, the politicians and their campaigners are ramping up the rhetoric. They’re going into attack mode, now. The gloves are off and the political candidates are resorting to the typical dirty tricks that have always been part of the election process.

Name-calling is a tactic that always seems to work. Candidate A calls candidate B an inexperienced newcomer. Candidate B retaliates by calling candidate A a career politician. Career politician?

Stop and think about it for a minute before you automatically assume that this intended slur carries any weight. What, exactly, is a career politician? Isn’t a career politician someone who was elected to office by the will of the majority of voters and remains in office at the will of the majority of voters? The majority of voters can end a career politician’s career simply by voting the crook out of office.

What does candidate B really hope to gain by calling candidate A a career politician? Isn’t he really hoping to defeat candidate A so that he, himself, can become a career politician?

Career politicians are the ones that get elected, and reelected. All the rest are inexperienced newcomers, a.k.a. also-rans.