Thursday, January 11, 2007
What Abraham Lincoln and the disasterpresident have in common......
Boy it is interesting. The Republico-News organizations are now being paid to put out the propaganda comparing the disasterpresident to Abraham Lincoln. This seems incredible even on the part of the Karl Rove school of propaganda. But if you look closely, you can get a clear picture of how this makes sense.
Look at the facts;
Lincoln was a great orator on paper, but because of Marphan syndrome, he delivered his speeches with a high pitched grating voice.
Look at the disasterpresidents speeches; awesome text but delivered like it is the Howdy-Doody show.
Lincoln on the podium was tall, gawky, and uneasy with towering above most others at the time.
The disasterpresident always looks like he does not know what to say next at the podium, and he has teleprompters!
Lincoln worked with a Corrupt, War profiteering, Radical Republican Congress.
Some things dont change.
Lincoln presided over a CIVIL WAR, which he called a REBELLION.
The disasterpresident presides over a CIVIL WAR that he calls an INSURGENCY.
Lincoln blockaded the coast of the Confederacy to shorten the War.
The disasterpresident blockaded the coast of Iran to lengthen and expand the WAR.(They both used the Navy to do this)
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and ignored the Supreme Court ruling to reinstate.
The disasterpresident suspended Habeas Corpus and stacked the Supreme Court so they would not rule against his anti-Liberty moves.
Lincoln acknowledged the sacrifice of his Army and wrote some personal letters to families of the fallen.
The disasterpresident doesnt allow photos of flag draped coffins and does not attend funerals of soldiers.(Gee not at all alike)
Lincoln fired generals that lied to him and would not fight.
The disasterpresident fired generals that told the truth and fought like Spartans.
(Kinda opposite I guess)
Lincoln spent his days locked in the Whitehouse worried about his nation.
The disasterpresident spends most of his time on vacation at his ranch.
(Gosh, these guys are nothing alike)
Lincoln freed the slaves.
The disasterpresident is creating economic slavery, and trying to spread it throughout the World, with the Middleast being first.
Last but not least:
Lincoln invaded and occupied New Orleans during the Civil War without causaties in seven days.
The disasterpresident did nothing during a hurricane and let New Orleans be destroyed in five days, then he invaded with the National Guard and more people died.
I think this time Karl Rove and his paid propaganda minions at Fox will have a tough time selling the Lincoln-disasterpresident connection.
Stand up against these people coopting our Democracy. Tell the Democrats to bring back our prestige in the World.
Participate and stay vigilent. Lastly, we must get someone to give the disasterpresident some tickets to Ford's theatre, there are times when you just have to leave it to fate........
Phillip Wister
Look at the facts;
Lincoln was a great orator on paper, but because of Marphan syndrome, he delivered his speeches with a high pitched grating voice.
Look at the disasterpresidents speeches; awesome text but delivered like it is the Howdy-Doody show.
Lincoln on the podium was tall, gawky, and uneasy with towering above most others at the time.
The disasterpresident always looks like he does not know what to say next at the podium, and he has teleprompters!
Lincoln worked with a Corrupt, War profiteering, Radical Republican Congress.
Some things dont change.
Lincoln presided over a CIVIL WAR, which he called a REBELLION.
The disasterpresident presides over a CIVIL WAR that he calls an INSURGENCY.
Lincoln blockaded the coast of the Confederacy to shorten the War.
The disasterpresident blockaded the coast of Iran to lengthen and expand the WAR.(They both used the Navy to do this)
Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and ignored the Supreme Court ruling to reinstate.
The disasterpresident suspended Habeas Corpus and stacked the Supreme Court so they would not rule against his anti-Liberty moves.
Lincoln acknowledged the sacrifice of his Army and wrote some personal letters to families of the fallen.
The disasterpresident doesnt allow photos of flag draped coffins and does not attend funerals of soldiers.(Gee not at all alike)
Lincoln fired generals that lied to him and would not fight.
The disasterpresident fired generals that told the truth and fought like Spartans.
(Kinda opposite I guess)
Lincoln spent his days locked in the Whitehouse worried about his nation.
The disasterpresident spends most of his time on vacation at his ranch.
(Gosh, these guys are nothing alike)
Lincoln freed the slaves.
The disasterpresident is creating economic slavery, and trying to spread it throughout the World, with the Middleast being first.
Last but not least:
Lincoln invaded and occupied New Orleans during the Civil War without causaties in seven days.
The disasterpresident did nothing during a hurricane and let New Orleans be destroyed in five days, then he invaded with the National Guard and more people died.
I think this time Karl Rove and his paid propaganda minions at Fox will have a tough time selling the Lincoln-disasterpresident connection.
Stand up against these people coopting our Democracy. Tell the Democrats to bring back our prestige in the World.
Participate and stay vigilent. Lastly, we must get someone to give the disasterpresident some tickets to Ford's theatre, there are times when you just have to leave it to fate........
Phillip Wister
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Big Oil picking your pockets again America......
Oil Prices Fall About $2 a Barrel to Lowest Levels in 18 Months on Rising Inventories in U.S.
LONDON (AP) -- Oil prices fell about $2 a barrel Tuesday to their lowest levels in 18 months in a market expecting more mild weather and rising inventories in the United States.
Temperatures in the U.S. Northeast have been above normal this winter, curbing demand for heating fuels in the world's largest heating oil market.
The above is just the first catch lines from an AP news post courtesy of Google where most of you search and get your news today. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE NEWS? I posted a blog in early October regarding Oil prices and supply and demand. I warned then that Big Oil was lowering gasoline prices($2.15 per gallon) in the face of rising Oil prices($68 per barrel) at the time to ease the Republican midterm election. Did anyone listen? Maybe. I said that after the election there would be higher prices because win or lose, Big Oil would not need to help anyone, just themselves to gross, unheard of profits. These profits come from you and me. Are you ready to still buy gas guzzeling cars America? Are you ready to continue with the same popaganda campaign from American auto makers for the global damaging cars that they have to give you incentives to buy? The price of a barrel of Oil is less than $59. The price of a gallon of gasoline now is $2.55 now. Lets see.......that means supply and demand work opposite than what I learned in school. I was taught with more supply price goes down. I am so glad to live in America, the land of the FREE MARKET, where Oil prices go down and the cost of gasoline miraculously goes UP. That is not the only thing, the profits of Big Oil go up also. You know what does go down? The cost of GAS GUZZELING autos goes down. Since the Republicans are no longer for sale in Congress because they were marginalized by the American People, the only way Big Oil can shove their profits down the throats of the American public now is to control their driving habit. See the website below for the details of Big Oils ownership of the American Auto Industry and therefore The Gas Guzzelers that We 'Choose' to drive.
http://www.ev1.org/gmoil.htm
ownership of shares by company of GM stock:
Chevron $469,000,000 worth
Exxon $844,000,000 worth
Connoco Phillips $312,000,000 worth
BP $82,000,000 worth
other $404,000,000 worth
Boy you would think that these companies have a vested interest in America buying gas guzzeling cars. I guess if I was making 10 billion dollars a quarter like Exxon, I would have a vested interest.
There are a couple of Dirty Harry questions that you have to ask yourself.
Was it worth having the Rebulicans giving tax breaks to Big Oil?
Was it worth getting rid of alternative energy vehicles at the cost of the Environment?
Was it worth turning economics on its head to put money in the pockets of a few rich Corporations?
We have to demand a fair society, where market forces are governed by market forces and not the manipulations of a few wealthy corporations with the purchase of government co-conspiritors(Read Republicans). You elected people to Represent a new direction for our society, hold their feet to the fire.
Phillip Wister
LONDON (AP) -- Oil prices fell about $2 a barrel Tuesday to their lowest levels in 18 months in a market expecting more mild weather and rising inventories in the United States.
Temperatures in the U.S. Northeast have been above normal this winter, curbing demand for heating fuels in the world's largest heating oil market.
The above is just the first catch lines from an AP news post courtesy of Google where most of you search and get your news today. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE NEWS? I posted a blog in early October regarding Oil prices and supply and demand. I warned then that Big Oil was lowering gasoline prices($2.15 per gallon) in the face of rising Oil prices($68 per barrel) at the time to ease the Republican midterm election. Did anyone listen? Maybe. I said that after the election there would be higher prices because win or lose, Big Oil would not need to help anyone, just themselves to gross, unheard of profits. These profits come from you and me. Are you ready to still buy gas guzzeling cars America? Are you ready to continue with the same popaganda campaign from American auto makers for the global damaging cars that they have to give you incentives to buy? The price of a barrel of Oil is less than $59. The price of a gallon of gasoline now is $2.55 now. Lets see.......that means supply and demand work opposite than what I learned in school. I was taught with more supply price goes down. I am so glad to live in America, the land of the FREE MARKET, where Oil prices go down and the cost of gasoline miraculously goes UP. That is not the only thing, the profits of Big Oil go up also. You know what does go down? The cost of GAS GUZZELING autos goes down. Since the Republicans are no longer for sale in Congress because they were marginalized by the American People, the only way Big Oil can shove their profits down the throats of the American public now is to control their driving habit. See the website below for the details of Big Oils ownership of the American Auto Industry and therefore The Gas Guzzelers that We 'Choose' to drive.
http://www.ev1.org/gmoil.htm
ownership of shares by company of GM stock:
Chevron $469,000,000 worth
Exxon $844,000,000 worth
Connoco Phillips $312,000,000 worth
BP $82,000,000 worth
other $404,000,000 worth
Boy you would think that these companies have a vested interest in America buying gas guzzeling cars. I guess if I was making 10 billion dollars a quarter like Exxon, I would have a vested interest.
There are a couple of Dirty Harry questions that you have to ask yourself.
Was it worth having the Rebulicans giving tax breaks to Big Oil?
Was it worth getting rid of alternative energy vehicles at the cost of the Environment?
Was it worth turning economics on its head to put money in the pockets of a few rich Corporations?
We have to demand a fair society, where market forces are governed by market forces and not the manipulations of a few wealthy corporations with the purchase of government co-conspiritors(Read Republicans). You elected people to Represent a new direction for our society, hold their feet to the fire.
Phillip Wister
Monday, January 08, 2007
Denying the Facts, Finding the Truth
ONE of the pop heroes of the Iraq war was undoubtedly Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf, the unfortunate Iraqi information minister who, in his daily press conferences during the invasion, heroically denied even the most evident facts and stuck to the Iraqi line. Even with American tanks only a few hundred yards from his office, he continued to claim that the televised shots of tanks on the Baghdad streets were just Hollywood special effects.
In his very performance as an excessive caricature, Mr. Sahhaf thereby revealed the hidden truth of the “normal” reporting: there were no refined spins in his comments, just a plain denial. There was something refreshingly liberating about his interventions, which displayed a striving to be liberated from the hold of facts and thus of the need to spin away their unpleasant aspects: his stance was, “Whom do you believe, your eyes or my words?”
Furthermore, sometimes, he even struck a strange truth — when confronted with claims that Americans were in control of parts of Baghdad, he snapped back: “They are not in control of anything — they don’t even control themselves!”
What, exactly, do they not control? Back in 1979, in her essay “Dictatorship and Double Standards,” published in Commentary, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick elaborated the distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes. This concept served as the justification of the American policy of collaborating with right-wing dictators while treating Communist regimes much more harshly: authoritarian dictators are pragmatic rulers who care about their power and wealth and are indifferent toward ideological issues, even if they pay lip service to some big cause; in contrast, totalitarian leaders are selfless fanatics who believe in their ideology and are ready to put everything at stake for their ideals.
Her point was that, while one can deal with authoritarian rulers who react rationally and predictably to material and military threats, totalitarian leaders are much more dangerous and have to be directly confronted.
The irony is that this distinction encapsulates perfectly what went wrong with the United States occupation of Iraq: Saddam Hussein was a corrupt authoritarian dictator striving to keep his hold on power and guided by brutal pragmatic considerations (which led him to collaborate with the United States in the 1980s). The ultimate proof of his regime’s secular nature is the fact that in the Iraqi elections of October 2002 — in which Saddam Hussein got a 100 percent endorsement, and thus overdid the best Stalinist results of 99.95 percent — the campaign song played again and again on all the state media was Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You.”
One outcome of the American invasion is that it has generated a much more uncompromising “fundamentalist” politico-ideological constellation in Iraq. This has led to a predominance of the pro-Iranian political forces there — the intervention basically delivered Iraq to Iranian influence. One can imagine how, if President Bush were to be court-martialed by a Stalinist judge, he would be instantly condemned as an “Iranian agent.” The violent outbursts of the recent Bush politics are thus not exercises in power, but rather exercises in panic.
Recall the old story about the factory worker suspected of stealing: every evening, when he was leaving work, the wheelbarrow he rolled in front of him was carefully inspected, but the guards could not find anything, it was always empty. Finally, they got the point: what the worker was stealing were the wheelbarrows themselves.
This is the trick being attempted by those who claim today, “But the world is nonetheless better off without Saddam!” They forget to factor into the account the effects of the very military intervention against him. Yes, the world is better without Saddam Hussein — but is it better if we include into the overall picture the ideological and political effects of this very occupation?
The United States as a global policeman — why not? The post-cold-war situation effectively called for some global power to fill the void. The problem resides elsewhere: recall the common perception of the United States as a new Roman Empire. The problem with today’s America is not that it is a new global empire, but that it is not one. That is, while pretending to be an empire, it continues to act like a nation-state, ruthlessly pursuing its interests. It is as if the guiding vision of recent American politics is a weird reversal of the well-known motto of the ecologists — act globally, think locally.
After 9/11, the United States was given the opportunity to realize what kind of world it was part of. It might have used the opportunity — but it did not, instead opting to reassert its traditional ideological commitments: out with the responsibility and guilt with respect to the impoverished third world — we are the victims now!
Apropos of the Hague tribunal, the British writer Timothy Garton Ash pathetically claimed: “No Führer or Duce, no Pinochet, Amin or Pol Pot, should ever again feel themselves protected from the reach of international law by the palace gates of sovereignty.” One should simply take note of what is missing in this series of names which, apart from the standard couple of Hitler and Mussolini, contains three third world dictators: where is at least one name from the major powers who might sleep a bit uneasily?
Or, closer to the standard list of the bad guys, why was there little talk of delivering Saddam Hussein or, say, Manuel Noriega to The Hague? Why was the only trial against Mr. Noriega for drug trafficking, rather than for his murderous abuses as a dictator? Was it because he would have disclosed his past ties with the C.I.A.?
In a similar way, Saddam Hussein’s regime was an abominable authoritarian state, guilty of many crimes, mostly toward its own people. However, one should note the strange but key fact that, when the United States representatives and the Iraqi prosecutors were enumerating his evil deeds, they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime in terms of human suffering and of violating international justice: his invasion of Iran. Why? Because the United States and the majority of foreign states were actively helping Iraq in this aggression.
And now the United States is continuing, through other means, this greatest crime of Saddam Hussein: his never-ending attempt to topple the Iranian government. This is the price you have to pay when the struggle against the enemies is the struggle against the evil ghosts in your own closet: you don’t even control yourself.
Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, is the author, most recently, of “The Parallax View.”
reprint from the nytimes.
In his very performance as an excessive caricature, Mr. Sahhaf thereby revealed the hidden truth of the “normal” reporting: there were no refined spins in his comments, just a plain denial. There was something refreshingly liberating about his interventions, which displayed a striving to be liberated from the hold of facts and thus of the need to spin away their unpleasant aspects: his stance was, “Whom do you believe, your eyes or my words?”
Furthermore, sometimes, he even struck a strange truth — when confronted with claims that Americans were in control of parts of Baghdad, he snapped back: “They are not in control of anything — they don’t even control themselves!”
What, exactly, do they not control? Back in 1979, in her essay “Dictatorship and Double Standards,” published in Commentary, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick elaborated the distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes. This concept served as the justification of the American policy of collaborating with right-wing dictators while treating Communist regimes much more harshly: authoritarian dictators are pragmatic rulers who care about their power and wealth and are indifferent toward ideological issues, even if they pay lip service to some big cause; in contrast, totalitarian leaders are selfless fanatics who believe in their ideology and are ready to put everything at stake for their ideals.
Her point was that, while one can deal with authoritarian rulers who react rationally and predictably to material and military threats, totalitarian leaders are much more dangerous and have to be directly confronted.
The irony is that this distinction encapsulates perfectly what went wrong with the United States occupation of Iraq: Saddam Hussein was a corrupt authoritarian dictator striving to keep his hold on power and guided by brutal pragmatic considerations (which led him to collaborate with the United States in the 1980s). The ultimate proof of his regime’s secular nature is the fact that in the Iraqi elections of October 2002 — in which Saddam Hussein got a 100 percent endorsement, and thus overdid the best Stalinist results of 99.95 percent — the campaign song played again and again on all the state media was Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You.”
One outcome of the American invasion is that it has generated a much more uncompromising “fundamentalist” politico-ideological constellation in Iraq. This has led to a predominance of the pro-Iranian political forces there — the intervention basically delivered Iraq to Iranian influence. One can imagine how, if President Bush were to be court-martialed by a Stalinist judge, he would be instantly condemned as an “Iranian agent.” The violent outbursts of the recent Bush politics are thus not exercises in power, but rather exercises in panic.
Recall the old story about the factory worker suspected of stealing: every evening, when he was leaving work, the wheelbarrow he rolled in front of him was carefully inspected, but the guards could not find anything, it was always empty. Finally, they got the point: what the worker was stealing were the wheelbarrows themselves.
This is the trick being attempted by those who claim today, “But the world is nonetheless better off without Saddam!” They forget to factor into the account the effects of the very military intervention against him. Yes, the world is better without Saddam Hussein — but is it better if we include into the overall picture the ideological and political effects of this very occupation?
The United States as a global policeman — why not? The post-cold-war situation effectively called for some global power to fill the void. The problem resides elsewhere: recall the common perception of the United States as a new Roman Empire. The problem with today’s America is not that it is a new global empire, but that it is not one. That is, while pretending to be an empire, it continues to act like a nation-state, ruthlessly pursuing its interests. It is as if the guiding vision of recent American politics is a weird reversal of the well-known motto of the ecologists — act globally, think locally.
After 9/11, the United States was given the opportunity to realize what kind of world it was part of. It might have used the opportunity — but it did not, instead opting to reassert its traditional ideological commitments: out with the responsibility and guilt with respect to the impoverished third world — we are the victims now!
Apropos of the Hague tribunal, the British writer Timothy Garton Ash pathetically claimed: “No Führer or Duce, no Pinochet, Amin or Pol Pot, should ever again feel themselves protected from the reach of international law by the palace gates of sovereignty.” One should simply take note of what is missing in this series of names which, apart from the standard couple of Hitler and Mussolini, contains three third world dictators: where is at least one name from the major powers who might sleep a bit uneasily?
Or, closer to the standard list of the bad guys, why was there little talk of delivering Saddam Hussein or, say, Manuel Noriega to The Hague? Why was the only trial against Mr. Noriega for drug trafficking, rather than for his murderous abuses as a dictator? Was it because he would have disclosed his past ties with the C.I.A.?
In a similar way, Saddam Hussein’s regime was an abominable authoritarian state, guilty of many crimes, mostly toward its own people. However, one should note the strange but key fact that, when the United States representatives and the Iraqi prosecutors were enumerating his evil deeds, they systematically omitted what was undoubtedly his greatest crime in terms of human suffering and of violating international justice: his invasion of Iran. Why? Because the United States and the majority of foreign states were actively helping Iraq in this aggression.
And now the United States is continuing, through other means, this greatest crime of Saddam Hussein: his never-ending attempt to topple the Iranian government. This is the price you have to pay when the struggle against the enemies is the struggle against the evil ghosts in your own closet: you don’t even control yourself.
Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, is the author, most recently, of “The Parallax View.”
reprint from the nytimes.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Doomsday Politics
It is nice to know that our Republic is on stable footing. We have been living in a Republic, not a representative Democracy for the last 6 years. You have seen the difference and did something about that in November. We were protected in our liberties until the last 4 years by something called a constitution. The laws passed and more poinigntly the "signing statements" or dictates of the current disasterpresident have all but eliminated much of the first ten amendments of the constitution with the exception of the 2nd amendment. Thank God Charleton Hestons cold dead hands can still hold a gun, and so can we. The disasterpresident has the largest Naval Armada ever assembled in the Persian Gulf and in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea RIGHT NOW. He is itching for a fight with IRAN. The pretzel has done everything but declare War on Iran. Ah but he could not do this becasue he still had some Republicans that had not gone completely insane yet and those pesky Democrats to stop him. An increase in troops in IRAQ would just mean more troops in the region, JUST IN CASE. This disasteradministration believes that a military showdown with IRAN is inevitable. They also believe that the next administration is not going to have like thinking and will not pursue this end. So, the only thing to do is start this now and leave it for someone else to finish.
If you notice the way the disasterpresident has operated, this is the process of all his policies. He wont have to raise taxes because his deficits will come back to haunt our children. He wont have to finish the mess in IRAQ because it is "a 50 year democracy project". He does not need a draft because he will be out of office just as he wastes our military to nothing. He does not have to worry about the environment because he will be out of office when the environmental disaster strikes. Disasterpresident is a good name for this guy because he is bringing this on in every field that his disasteradministration has had a hand in.
WHY IS THIS THE PROCESS?
Let me refer you back to something that a good friend of darthchenney said about the environment; "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations", meaning, however many generations there are before the RAPTURE happens. This was stated by James Watt one time Sec. of the Interior under the Alzheimerspresident infront of the press and the public. So the process is, we only need to do stuff until the Lord Returns.
So what does that mean for the "change in direction" the disasterpresident keeps putting off announcing to the Public. Well, the big change is you put an Admiral in charge of ground operations in the middleast and south asia. Hmm, why would you do this? Because any strike against Iran is going to be from the Navy in the Gulf. The largest offensive strike force you have in the middleast now is the NAVY. Why would you replace all the main field commanders of the military in time of War including the head of the Joint Chiefs? Because they dont agree with your policy and you are about to increase the "more of the same","stay the course" policy to include IRAN.
Which gets back to Charleton Hestons gun. If the Democrats do not stand up and stop the War and the future limiting policies of the disasterpresident, the American People may be the only ones to be able to stand up to the Republican tyranny that has happened to our Democracy. We cannot afford to let our children grow up in a world that was wasted because of a narrow group of limited thinkers with no future time concept or goals beyond immediate gratification for their personal ecconomic strata.
Take back your power America.
Phillip Wister
