The Uncomfortable Truth

Had My Fill Of Drill Drill Drill!

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:26:34 -0800

Have you noticed the price of a barrel of oil lately?
It’s down quite a bit in the last couple of weeks. A 15% drop in the price and not one well has been drilled in America.
I wish it meant that calls to rape our environment to “bring the price of gasoline down” would stop, but too many people have been misled—by the same folks who keep us divided and addicted to their product--for it to ever stop. Alas.
I don't know where people get the idea of "American" oil companies (well, yes I do--the government/corporate media). Can anyone name one that is wholly owned and controlled by Americans?
OK, besides Marathon.
Multinational oil companies operate on capitalist principles for the most part. If we let them drill in America for "American" oil, they will sell it to the highest bidder as they always have. If the Chinese or Indians pay more, they get it.
We heard this same story back when they first wanted to drill in Alaska--most of that oil goes to Asia .
Why?
More money for those "American" oil companies!
DUH!
This is not rocket science.
I don't claim to know much about economics, but I know there are two factors that influence prices. If you can increase supply beyond the demand, prices will drop.
Unfortunately, drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the “Bakken” formation will not increase supply above the demands of India and China (and misinformed Americans) so prices will not change much--get used to it.
The real tragedy is that the people who are the most ignorant about this are screaming the loudest. They are the ones who keep reelecting the clowns who sent our jobs overseas in the first place!
Now that Chinese and Indians have our jobs, they want to spend their (our?) money on the same things we like to spend our money on. Cars being one of those things. Cars run on gasoline. There are two-and-a-half billion people in those two countries. Like I said, deal with it.
The reason oil prices have come down is because we are using less—apparently a LOT less. Enough to negate the increasing international demand—for the time being.
The way to keep the price down for a longer time is to keep that demand down, and decrease it even further through conservation or alternative forms of energy. The best way to do that is to educate people about how we get our oil and how the whole game works.
You know what would make the price of oil drop like a rock? If the government announced they were going to end all the subsidies they give to oil companies and instead give those billions to independent researchers in the field of battery technology! Better yet, they might offer a large cash prize in exchange for the rights, they could then put the design in the public domain so that we all might benefit. Hell! They could sell the technology to other nations when they get tired of choking on and dying for oil.
Imagine the benefits. Cleaner air, no chance of oil spills, and no sending our sons and daughters to be killed and maimed in the pursuit of “American Interests.”
Hey, a guy can dream can’t he?
Seriously, I am opposed to subsidies in principle. But energy is already an issue of national security and history proves it’s worth starting wars over. Now, with a (most likely) dwindling supply of oil, adding 2.5 billion consumers for it is going to cause another war down the road.
Who wants to nuke it out with them?
I oppose subsidies, but I oppose senseless death even more.

It's The Fannie And Freddie Show!

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:36:43 -0800

Welcome to the big show kids!
The show you had better enjoy, because you’ll be paying for it!
Don’t tell Mommy and Daddy, but “Federal” is just part of our name. We’re really a small bunch of really rich investors who have nothing at all to do with government—other than getting them to do EVERYthing we say!
Why?
Cuz we gave ‘em 200 million bucks last year! And we give ‘em 200 million bucks EVERY year! And those guys’ll do ANYthing for money—like steal it from your mom and dad and make you pay for it when you grow up! Oh no! NO! Don’t cry kids. Our friends at the Fed—that’s this big bank where they make all the money you’ll need to pay us—are doing EVERYthing they can to give you NEW money by making OLD money worthless! They’re gonna call it the Amero—like AMERICA! Isn’t that cool?
Now, that 200 million dollars we give to Congress EVERY year? They’re gonna take that money and get mommies and daddies EVERYwhere to keep voting for them, so they can keep taking BILLIONS of dollars from mommies and daddies EVERYwhere and give it to US! See? It’s like a big choo-choo! It just keeps going in a circle! And WE get more money! Isn’t this fun?

Kids, your parents are stupid.
SHHHhhhhh!
Let’s keep it our secret!

A Picture Is Worth . . . .

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:43:10 -0800

The “Silver” Standard

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:35:18 -0800

We’ve all heard the term “gold standard” tossed around, sometimes as an adjective synonymous with quality, sometimes in reference to America’s economy.
I refer to a silver standard in referencing the price of gasoline.
I was surfing one night and saw some fellow’s rant about how the mint took the silver out of US coins back in 1964.
I looked into it and it seems dimes used to contain 2.25 grams of silver. With silver at $1.29/oz. in 1963, a dime was actually worth 10.2 cents. Not bad.
And a gallon of gas cost three dimes, or 6.75 grams of silver.
So, with silver at $17.40 an ounce, 6.75 grams comes to four dollars and fourteen cents.
Down the street from me, gasoline is selling for $4.15/gallon.
Makes you think, don’t it?
George Will—famous BS artist for the Right—has written numerous times that gasoline is no more expensive now than it has ever been, even though it costs almost fourteen times as much as it did in ’63 (13.8 times as much to be precise).
If you click HERE you will be taken to the US government’s own inflation calculator. Enter $1.29 and 1963 and you find that today, you’d have only $9.22 in actual buying power.
The good news is that George Will was right, gasoline is no more expensive than it was in 1963—if you pay for it with silver.
The bad news is that your money is worth only half as much!
This November, NO issue is more important than the value of your money.
Neither the Republican nor the Democrat have a plan to keep your money’s value.
Who will you vote for?

Me And Barack

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:45:10 -0800

Last week I was explaining to a very good friend my position on Obama and his chances of actually being nominated, or elected. I am told she was somewhat taken aback by my arch position. It is possible she thinks I dislike the candidate. After all, I stated my belief he is a fascist.
I personally like the man. I want very much for Obama to be the man many people believe him to be.
If I had only two choices in November, he would get my vote. (Thank god I have more than two choices.)
I love it when he shoots his mouth off and says stuff like Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount tells him that Jesus would have no problems with gay marriage. It’s true! It’s damned controversial too! A tough sell in the Bible Belt! The last thing Christians want to hear is the truth of Christ’s teachings. But, I digress.
Anyway, the “handlers” come in and spin what he actually said into something more palatable to the wider audience.
Actually listening to our enemies’ concerns without all the BS posturing? What an excellent idea! Oops! Here come the handlers.
When the government/corporate media jumped on the Rev. Wright for essentially telling an uncomfortable truth, these handlers told Obama to cut the man loose.
Again, I would love to see a man with his moral character and vision elected president. Unfortunately, with Obama, we get all the handlers too. OK, so maybe Obama isn’t a fascist—I misspoke—his administration will be.
One of Obama’s advisers is a fellow named Zbigniew Brzezinski (pronunciations differ), one of the founders of the Tri-Lateral Commission. If you think the Council on Foreign Relations—of which McCain and Obama are both members—holds goals contrary to America’s, Google the TLC. These guys invented the “New World Order” Bush the First spoke so fondly of.
The guys who advised Bush are advising Obama. There will be no fundamental differences in Obama’s presidency. His handlers will not allow it.
Hope will not make it so.

Oil Crisis--NOT!

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:53:32 -0800

The biggest lie we’re hearing lately is about America’s oil crisis
It seems that when people are paying $75 to fill up the tank in their economy car, you have their attention. It’s a shame the media has to deceive people once they get their attention.
America has an energy crisis—we don’t use it efficiently enough. Our crisis only becomes an “oil” crisis because our government/corporate media does not want us to lose our focus on oil.
We are told that wind energy is impractical—we lack the infrastructure to deliver it. As I was driving up the Skyway to Paradise recently—in a fresh gale—I passed under several sets of high-voltage transmission lines strung along the ridge, despoiling the view. I wondered, how hard would it be to put a series of wind generators along that ridge-top and the thousands of other ridge-tops over which high-voltage transmission lines already are strung? The view is already ruined. Personally, I find that renewable energy has a beauty all its own. As much as I abhor mega-corporations, I have to give GE credit for the wind turbines they have developed in the past few years. They have one unit that will power 2500 homes. It is truly an objet d’art.
A wind generator--strong enough to power the typical household--can be mounted on the typical house with zero investment in infrastructure. A generator strong enough to recharge a “commuter” car could be mounted damn near anywhere.
Another huge myth is being spread in transportation circles. It goes something like, “The energy used by electric vehicles is the same amount of energy used by cars—it just comes from somewhere else. Further, just as much CO2 is released when the electricity is generated.
Bull.
Electric motors obtain 90% efficiency. The best a gasoline motor can do is 24%--the rest is lost to heat. Electric cars can go three times as far for the same amount of energy.
Where and when the wind blows, electric cars are virtually free to drive!
Of course, the wind doesn’t blow everywhere, or reliably enough in many places, but that’s not the point.
The point is, no one is even talking about the simple ideas!
We don’t have to make oil companies even richer to solve our energy problems. The energy is all around us, we just have to make wise use of it.

Forty Years

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:30:00 -0800

It’s hard to believe it’s been that long.
I awoke with anticipation and worry. Did Bobby Kennedy survive the night? He had not been doing well when I had gone to sleep the night before but doctors were saying there was hope.
I half-ran to the family room to switch on the TV so it would have time to warm up while I washed my face (you had to do that back then). As I came down the hall I saw that my sister had gotten there first. The news was written on her face.
Maureen was sitting on dad’s chair quietly sobbing. We weren’t really taught to be demonstrative so, not wanting to embarrass her, I did not make my presence known. I did watch her though.
I was ten at the time, and though more politically savvy than your average ten-year-old—and all of today’s dittoheads--the only thing I really understood about Kennedy was that he was JFK’s little brother: JFK was America’s only Irish-Catholic president, and that was good enough for this Irish-Catholic kid.
My sister, on the other hand was old! She was thirteen. She knew who the next president should be.
I can still recall the utter sadness I witnessed that day.
I cry now at the memory as I write this.
I realize now I cried as much for my sister as I did for Bobby.
RFK’s assassination was a personal tragedy for me. Those bastards! They made my sister cry!

I’m glad the truth is finally coming out.
A new feature documentary, “RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy” will be released in England, later this month (click HERE for the link).
When it gets to the US, please make an effort to see it.

The Bradley Factor

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:07:36 -0800

It looks as of Barack Obama has the nomination of his party all sewn up. However, looks can be deceiving.
It’s comical to watch on the government/corporate media.
There stands Hillary, not giving up just yet. And why should she?
Contrary to what we are hearing, those much-vaunted superdelegates are not committed until the third day of the convention, when they actually cast their votes.
The whole concept of superdelegates began in 1982 when the Democrats decided the “liberals” were taking too much control away from the seasoned party members. The idea was that by having people who actually knew how to win elections help decide the nominee, a more electable nominee would be chosen.
I think that between now and the convention, Hillary will step up and make more plain what she has been trying to say all spring.
She will be reminding the superdelegates of the Bradley Factor.
Tom Bradley, in case you do not know, was the Black Democratic candidate for governor of California back in 1982. Coincidence? Yeah, probably.
Anyway, Tom Bradley was easily beating George Deukmejian in the polls. The race was “all but over,” etc.
Until the racists got into the voting booth.
As I sat with my then-future wife, watching the returns, I explained to her that there was no way Bradley could win. She refused to believe me, having grown up in an upper-class suburb, the child of one of Mr. Bradley’s business partners.
Nobody likes to admit it. Hillary is trying damned hard to be politically correct about it, but the ugly, uncomfortable truth is that an huge numbers of White folks will not vote for Obama because he is black. Neither will large numbers of Hispanics. (Most Asians won’t either, but they do not make up a large voting bloc, so strategists don’t really care about them.)
In the media they refer to them euphemistically as “working class,” and point up their education—or lack of it.
In West Virginia, they are kindly called “rural.” I guess terms like “ain’t too bright” and “hicks” would be politically incorrect.
In California, I call them rednecks. They’re prejudices are more subtle—and they will lie to pollsters so as not to appear racist.
Whatever you call them, they vote. And they won’t vote for Obama.
A few weeks ago, a democratic strategist was quite blunt when he said the democrats “[C]ould not win the presidency with just the African-American and the intellectual vote.”
He was right. Especially when they are up against a genuine former POW/Hero who has served his country, and who has a son in the current fight.
At least with Hillary, they will have a seasoned fighter. They will get a team that knows how to win.
Anyone who tells you this is over before the convention in August is crazy.
My money is on Hillary.

Talk, do NOT Appease!

Wed, 28 May 2008 19:48:43 -0800

A lot of propagandists on the right would have you believe that talking to someone is exactly the same as giving in to them. They are smart enough to know better, but they take advantage of their listeners’ ignorance. The problem is that their lies get repeated ad nauseum throughout the internet—increasing exponentially the stupidity factor.
Have you seen the stupidity out there lately?
In case you need some background, the short version:
Seventy-some-odd years ago, when Adolph Hitler was beginning his conquest of Europe, then British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, met with Hitler and caved in to his demands--in the interests of peace. Chamberlain “gave” the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia to Hitler.
We all know how that turned out.
From this, the lesson has been learned that one never gives in to dictators.
Presently, some would have us believe that simply talking to the people who have righteous disagreements with us amounts to the same thing that Chamberlain did.
Recently Jimmy Carter was pilloried by the media because he met with Hamas, the duly-elected representatives of the Palestinian people.
“Blessed are the peacemakers . . . . . who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” And, oh yeah, “Love your enemies.”
But, I digress.
There is no single definition of terrorist. We can call Hamas a terrorist organization, because they want to see the destruction of Israel. The US could be called terrorist because we would like to see a “regime change” here and there.
So?
We can call the president of Iran a terrorist, but does that make him one? Sheesh! The guy’s got lower poll ratings than our own president—if you can believe that—does anyone in Iran even listen to the fool?
I had to give Barack Obama points for saying he would talk to our enemies. He lost those points when he backtracked on that statement in an appeasement of his own to the corporate-controlled media.
Pussy.
SOMEbody needs to talk to these clowns.
Somebody needs to sit across from the table and tell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that his rhetoric is scaring the women and children, and would he please refrain. Tell him that if he doesn’t, we have a smart-bomb with his name on it. You can get more with a kind word and a bomb than you can with a kind word.
What’s so hard about that?
What is so wrong with that? (Other than the fact it is in complete contradiction with that whole “love your enemies” idea.)
This is talk, not appeasement.
But we need to listen, too. Iran is bordered by two nuclear powers, with a third nation in civil war on another border. You think they might have some legitimate concerns here? Just who the Hell are we to decide if another nation can have the same weapons we have already made use of?
“But they’re a terrorist nation.”
Says who? American media? The same media that just regurgitates the government line? The same media that hasn't done a decent investigative report since Watergate? The same media that bows to the wishes of its handful of stockholders--who also own stock in "war-profitable" companies?
The truth is we know very little about Iran and we will never know if we don't sit down and talk to them.
Hamas? Their beef with us is that Israel is our ally. We make it clear to them that if they mess with US interests—and that does NOT mean our oil supply—we will take out their leadership. And we will keep taking it out until they act like civilized people. Their problems with the Israelis are NOT our problem. Let the Israelis handle it.
Pakistan? I’ve said it before: We give them a month to turn over Osama. After that, we will see to his destruction. (We might call them first and tell them to evacuate.)
That is the key, however. We have to back up our words.
Two decades ago, Iranian-backed Shias were kidnapping Americans of the streets of Beirut with apparent impunity. The story is they tried it just once with a Soviet citizen. The next day, a prominent Shia leader was kidnapped by the Soviets. The leader’s genitalia was then delivered to Shia headquarters. Within an hour the Soviet was released.
The story may or may not be true, but the Soviets did not have any of their citizens held prisoner for years as we did.
Teddy Roosevelt said it best, but you can’t “talk softly” if you don’t talk at all.

Gay Marriage

Thu, 22 May 2008 18:42:01 -0800

As we all know by now, the California State Supreme Court recently “legalized” gay marriage.
This topic is a gold mine of essays. Here's five short ones.

I imagine the so-called conservative types are having a collective conniption fit. (Picture me smiling!) Seriously though, conservatives are wont to conserve the principles our country was founded upon—and that does not include straight democracy. Never forget: the US is a republic.
Since the founding fathers would abhor the concept of people voting directly on the issues, how can a good conservative circulate petitions to overturn the ruling and still adhere to his principles? I suppose if I ever make the acquaintance of a principled conservative, I could ask.

A few years ago, the faux conservatives were circulating petitions because Vermont—maybe it was Massachusetts—legalized unions between gays. The real conservatives knew Article IV, Sec 1 of The Constitution, the “Full faith and credit” clause, would trump any initiative.
Not that it will make one bit of difference, but I imagine millions of dollars will be go to make media-types rich as the intolerant impotently try to stop the inevitable. Of course, this is why the media-types are hyping this issue.

I was listening to some fellow from the Atlanta Constitution on the radio last week and he was talking about “equality.” Of course, it’s always about the equality. He and the host were mixing it up and during the discussion, the topic of health insurance came up. The topic only surfaced; how the insurance industry started the whole discussion of gay marriage was not mentioned.
Gay marriage is all about the money. Believe me, our representatives care about the rights of gays about as much as they care about the rights of the rest of us—damned little.
To get divorced, you have to get married. To get a divorce, you need a lawyer. It goes without saying that the supremes are lawyers—as well as most of California’s legislators.
Call your insurance company. Tell them you have AIDS or that you are HIV positive. Ask them what your premiums will be.
That’s right. You can’t get insurance. The insurance companies aren’t in the business of losing money. They won’t insure for diseases that carry astronomical costs.
But if your partner works for the government or certain companies, because of laws already on the books, you may be able to get health insurance. Of course, it’s expensive. But who cares? The cost is spread out; in the case of local governments, the cost is passed on to you and I. Of course, not every city or county in California covers domestic partners. Many companies do not. Making gay marriage the law will make sure that the insurance companies can profit off of more Californians. People with terminal diseases who aren’t married to someone with mandated coverage will just have to settle for being less “equal.”

I think a legitimate argument can be made for “What’s next?” By that I mean, if gay marriage is legal, is there a possibility that polygamy or interspecies marriages would come next? Interspecies marriages may be a bit of a stretch, and of course this is a “slippery slope” argument—and therefore fallacious. Yet, if the question is between “consenting adults” who is to say how many consenting adults should be in the marriage? After polygamy, then what?
A contributor to my local paper answered that question for me just this morning. Admittedly, I had not given any thought to the subject of an incestuous marriage--that's really weird--but why not? IF the adults are consenting.

Personally, I don’t give a damn. I think the government should not be involved in anybody’s personal relationships. There is no reason they can’t live with whomever they want. Why should there be?
If the so-called conservatives wanted to “protect” marriage, they’d pass laws to make divorce harder—or maybe provide counseling to anybody who even thinks about getting married in the first place!
Speaking of all those so-called “Christian Conservatives.” Why can’t they get over the fact that God made us all different? I mean, they claim to put their faith Him, then second-guess what He does! I don’t get it.

Mission (Not) Accomplished

Thu, 01 May 2008 18:07:59 -0800

As we all know, five years ago today, President Bush spent a boatload of taxpayer dollars to stage his “Mission Accomplished” gig on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln. At the time many people believed this war was over. I did. As cynical as I am, I believed him. Perhaps I only wanted to believe him. On the other hand, he’s got the sincere act down pretty good. (When you can fake sincerity, you can fake anything.) I realized soon enough that it was just another lie in what has turned out to be a bottomless pit of prevarication.
According to the Associated Press, Bush tried several ways to modify this whopper, including a flat-out denial that The White House had anything at all to do with the banner flown right over his head.
Finally, after five years, I saw a story today on the Drudge Report entitled “White House admits fault on 'Mission Accomplished' banner.”
Alas, the headline was misleading—as is usual for the Drudge Report. The story didn’t say the president admitted to any error that day. It seems that the president’s spin meisters have finally settled on the canard that he was referring to the aircraft carrier’s mission in the war.
Oh.
THAT’S what he meant!
Who knew?
I guess this means the war is back on. Which is good in a way.
I mean, it’s ludicrous to think we’ve lost 3,900 soldiers waging peace!
How will it look in the history books that we killed close to a million innocent people after the war had been won?
Who knows? Maybe the Iraqis, realizing the mission is not accomplished yet, will give up their silly demands that we stop killing them and get the Hell out of there. Maybe all those Godless peace mongers will give up their pleas too.
It’s also good that the president realizes what all intelligent Americans have known for some time. (I have had doubts that he ever would.) That means he is now smarter than a dittohead—somewhat like being taller than an midget, but it is an accomplishment of sorts.
Hmmm, another banner, maybe?
Seriously, though.
Last month, Bush said, "While this war is difficult, it is not endless."
I wonder if we’ll have to wait five years to find out what he meant by that?

Winter Soldiers

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:52:05 -0800

The term “Winter Soldiers” is derived from the writings of Thomas Paine. In his first Crisis paper, he wrote critically of “Sunshine patriots” and “summer soldiers.” The term honors those who stick it out when times are tough.
In more recent times it was used to describe hearings held in 1971 that described atrocities committed by our soldiers. John Kerry testified at those hearings and drew the wrath of the idiots on the Right when he ran for president.
Even more recently—just a few weeks ago—in Silver Spring, Maryland, a summit was hosted by Iraq Veterans Against the War.
(I would like to thank Tom Gascoyne, publisher of The Chico Beat, for enlightening me on this—I sure as hell didn’t catch this on the FAUX news channel.)
According to The Nation magazine, several soldiers testified of atrocities they themselves had committed while bringing democracy to the Iraqi people. Several soldiers were prepared to testify under oath in a Court of Law.
For a link to the summit hearings click HERE
It seems that the difference in the VietNam hearings and the Iraq hearings is only of detail—the horrors recounted are about equal.
Could this be why suicides by returning soldiers are at their highest levels ever?
We’ve destroyed the nation of Iraq, we’ve destroyed close to a million Iraqis.
Now, this war is destroying the very people who have to fight it.
Wouldn't now be a good time to end it?

If FOX News Had Been There

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:54:32 -0800

A tip o' the hat to Joe Shaw--From Outside The Box

Will The REAL Patriot Please Stand Up? '

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:56:28 -0800

It is not my habit to simply cut and paste articles from the news, But I could not resist this one!
Nothing needs to be added to this.

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines. In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.) The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation. What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated. While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections. Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country? After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America's biggest cities. This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, who has been in the news for comments he made over the last three decades. Since these comments became public we have heard criticisms, condemnations, denouncements and rejections of his comments and him. We've seen on television, in a seemingly endless loop, sound bites of a select few of Rev. Wright's many sermons. Some of the Wright's comments are inexcusable and inappropriate and should be condemned, but in calling him "unpatriotic," let us not forget that this is a man who gave up six of the most productive years of his life to serve his country. How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many. While words do count, so do actions. Let us not forget that, for whatever Rev. Wright may have said over the last 30 years, he has demonstrated his patriotism.
This article appeared in this morning's Chicago Tribune

Are We There Yet?

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:13:23 -0800

Do you remember what you were doing five years ago today?
I remember I was talking to one of my students about the war that had just started.
I told him that, “We’ll still be there in five years, and you will probably have to go fight it.”
Well, he hasn’t had to go, and we are still there.
I may have only been half-right, but at least the kid isn’t dead like the almost 4,000 other Americans, or the anywhere between 100 and 600 thousand Iraqis.
My student asked how I could possibly know that.
“Simple,” I replied, “I’ve studied history—unlike our President.”
I explained that history has demonstrated what happens when you remove a strongman from power. You get chaos.
I pointed out an example that had occurred in his own lifetime: the Death of Yugoslavia’s dictator, Josep Tito, led to a bloody, years-long war in the Balkans (that continues to this day). Dictators may be SOBs, but they know how to keep the peace.
I further pointed out that Iraq was a “new” country (1922) with arbitrarily drawn borders that did not take into account the ethnic and religious differences of the people that lived there.
He asked me about the differences between Shiites and Sunnis. I replied that I did not understand them, but those differences were serious enough that these guys kill each other over them. I pointed out that neither branch of Islam has too much affection for the Kurds, and that the only solution to insure the peace would be to carve it into three countries.
I still believe that.
Shortly after the war started, it ended, or so we thought.
I mean, Gosh!, there’s the president standing under a big banner saying “Mission Accomplished.”
The troops will be coming home soon, right?

OK, so we redefined the mission. To what I am not sure.
“We’re going to be there until we have victory.”
Oh, OK.
What is victory?
There are no WMDs in Iraq.
That is a victory.
Saddam is dead.
That’s a victory.
Are we going to establish democracy?
Democracy in Palestine has brought Hamas to power. We don’t dare establish democracy.
There have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.
We could call that a victory.
We’ve built the world’s largest embassy complex in Baghdad and we’ve got nineteen brand new military bases over there (plus the two in Afghanistan that most folks haven’t heard about). The US will be there forever.
That’s a victory of sorts. At least the oil is secure.
Listen to Fox news. There’s a victory every day!
I saw on the real news the other day a young Marine down at Camp Pendleton, getting ready to go on his FIFTH deployment. The poor young man looked at the camera and said, “I don’t wanna go.” Can you blame him?
I guess victory for him would be getting home alive.
Until and unless somebody with a pair gets up and defines what victory is, the only answer to the question, “Are we there yet?” has to be:
“We’re not headed there anymore.”