On the economy...

No, I'm not an economist...and I don't even play one on TV, however, I have had a few economics courses and I still maintain an ability to reason and face facts and reality head-on. Hence, the following observations.

1. Though it would be pleasing to do so, one simply cannot lay ALL of the blame on Bush the Lesser's (mal)administration. Granted and agreed, this (mal)administration has removed what few restraints and regulations were still in place holding back the tidal wave that has crashed about us in the last few days. However, even when the current (mal)administration took office, most of the restrictions and regulations that were developed and implemented following the last economic cataclysm (oddly enough, arising from many analogous causes as the current disaster) had been dissolved.

2. Although the causes for the current financial and economic tsunami can be almost directly traced to the Reagan/Bush I (mal)administrations, Bubba Clinton and his (mal)administration are hardly blameless. Though often painted by the right wing as “liberals” and looked back at today by many “liberals” and Democrats as a “Golden Era”, Clinton was, in no wise, a liberal. Clinton (and Al Gore) were there at the founding of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) which served as one of those fabled devices of “triangulation”. What “triangulation” meant, in essence, was to push the Democratic Party away from its traditional base (workers, small business, minorities of all stripes, etc.) and toward more of the traditional Republican base (F.I.R.E.¹ Sector, Wall St., etc.). The DLC reasoned (erroneously it would seem) that the traditional Democratic base had nowhere to go so they could be ignored while the traditional Republican base could be wooed and won by adopting more (big) “business friendly” policies. Additionally, Clinton surrounded himself with such Wall St. fixtures as Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs chairman) and Lawrence Summers (Goldman Sachs chairman). As has proven to be the case with the current Secretary of Treasury, Hank Paulson (yet another Goldman Sachs alum), though they may accede to offices of public trust, they never forget from whence they came and hold the interests of the Wall St. entities close to heart.

3. The unseemly, unbecoming and inappropriate spectacle of the “Millionaires Club” aka the U.S. Senate crafting and voting on a Wall St., “bailout” bill (inappropriate inasmuch as ALL revenue bills are supposed to originate in the House) was truly nauseating. Nauseating because by far the vast majority of communications from their constituents was solidly against any bailout of the Wall St. fat cats that had made millions of dollars by essentially engineering the very situation they needed to be bailed out from! Isn't it interesting, when the question came to the common folk who were victims of the schemes of the Wall St. banksters and needed some help to maintain a roof over their heads, the Senators, Congress critters, and banksters almost uniformly shrieked “Moral hazard!”, “Moral hazard!” And yet, when it comes to bailing out the very people most responsible for creating the situation and circumstances that have led to the current disaster...”Listen to the sounds...of silence.”

This was unseemly and unbecoming because, without any shadow of doubt, all of the Senators and Congress critters are far wealthier than the average American and many are heavily invested in Wall St. and were, therefore, voting their own interests rather than acting as “representatives of their constituents”. Were this in the judicial arena, virtually the entirety of the Senate and House would have to recuse themselves for “conflict of interest”!

What has been shown by these last two weeks, to any who had any doubts, that the current system of government is broken; totally, completely and irremediably broken! What I find terribly disturbing was a comment from Brooke Gladstone on PBS's “Bill Moyers Journal”:

“BROOKE GLADSTONE: Rather than trusting the leaders to make the decisions that we elected them to make.” (emphasis mine)

And, though it doesn't come out from the transcript, Gladstone seems disturbed that the people aren't trusting their “leaders”! As I recall, this country was established as a “representative democracy”. The reason it was established as a representative democracy and the citizens had to “trust” our “leaders” “...to makes the decisions that we elected them to make.” is because communications were limited to the speed of a horse and even the original 13 colonies covered a large enough territory that communications between constituents and representatives were not feasible in any sort of timely manner. Today, in the era of instant communications, the “peoples' representatives” need to be much more responsive and attuned to the sentiments of their putative “bosses”, their constituents. As it is, these last two weeks have dramatically shown that the “peoples' representatives”, both Republican and Democratic, take their marching orders from their true bosses, the F.I.R.E. Sector and Wall St. and to Hell with the desires of those that actually put them in office!

At this point all I can suggest is that each and every one of the Senators and Congress critters who voted for the “bailout” and is vulnerable to election should be summarily removed in the upcoming election and replaced by someone who understands who the true bosses in a representative democracy really are!

____________________
¹ F.I.R.E. Sector = Finance, Insurance and Real Estate.

Le Roi est mort! Vive le Roi!

(Updated below)

Well, according to the latest news, the trillion dollar bailout has ground to a halt. Now, the Fools on the Hill (i.e., the Democrats) are laboring mightily to resurrect the stinking, rotting corpse. To that I say, “Le Roi est mort! Vive le Roi!”

It is more than middling odd to see Sellout Pelosi prancing and preening for the cameras, promising that the bailout WILL be finalized before the end of the weekend. I say more than middling odd inasmuch as both congresspersons and senators, both Democratic and Republican, are reporting that they have received an avalanche of e-mails and faxes in the past few days. And, according to these representatives and senators, that avalanche of correspondence is running 100 to 1 AGAINST the bailout. And yet, here is Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Congressman Barney Frank, Senator Dodd et al., all strutting around, pleased as Punch that they are crafting a bailout package that their constituents are adamantly against! And people wonder why Congress has a disapproval rating between 73-78%?!

This is supposed to be a “representative democracy”, right? So, just who are the Congress critters and senators representing? It is most obvious that they are not representing the people who voted them into office! Perhaps they are representing their true constituency, the mega-wealthy and the FIRE sector, the people who have bought and paid for their representatives (both Congressional and Senatorial) and by God, their bought and paid for shills had better produce!

We hear, repeatedly, just put the Democrats back in charge and all will be well. What a crock! In 2006 the voting public massively voted against the Republicans and, by default, for the Democrats. Have they ended the occupation of Iraq? No! Have they dismantled the so-called “Homeland Security” apparatus whose prime concern seems to be the persecution of domestic dissent? No! Have they ended the disgrace that is Guantánamo? No! How about holding the telecommunications giants as well as the Bush (mal)administration to book for the blatantly illegal spying on the American public! Hah! The Democrats bent over backwards to bend over backwards! Even though on that issue as well, the public was clamoring NOT to grant blanket retroactive immunity, our “representatives” discarded any appearance of representing their voters.

We are told by the Pelosis and Immanuels that the most important thing is “to elect more Democrats”. To what end? When the positions held by the Democratic establishment are virtually indistinguishable from the positions of the putative opposition, the Republican establishment, why bother to “vote Democrat”?

As The Who said so well back in 1971:

“I'll tip my hat to the new constitution

Take a bow for the new revolution

Smile and grin at the change all around me

Pick up my guitar and play

Just like yesterday

Then I'll get on my knees and pray

We don't get fooled again

Don't get fooled again

No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss”

Smile; we've been so fooled again!

Update:

Shock! Seems some of the Fools on the Hill may not be as foolish as I thought. In response to a veritable flood of e-mails and faxes the “bipartisan” bailout of Wall Street as gone down in flames.

As Speaker Pelosi pointed out, "The legislation may have failed; the crisis is still with us." This is true, but, that being the case, I would offer the following as a basis to rectifying that crisis.

1. Scrap the Paulson plan, period. From its inception, the Paulson plan has been of Goldman Sachs, by Goldman Sachs, for Goldman Sachs. There is every good reason to believe that Paulson's rushing to the rescue of AIG was owing to the fact that, had AIG folded, Goldman Sachs would have gotten pennies on the dollar. Nuff said.

2. Any bailout plan for Wall Street MUST include a rollback of personal bankruptcy protections to the status quo ante of the punitive Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Or, going one better, analogous provisions of that Act should now be imposed on the CEOs and executives of any Wall Street entity seeking a government bailout.

3. Provide for at least a foreclosure moratorium for homeowners earnestly attempting to retain their homes and attempting good faith efforts to continue to pay at least payments with which they were enticed into purchasing/refinancing their homes.

4. As part and parcel of any government bailout, executives of any entity being bailed out must return to the Treasury any monies in excess of $1,000,000 per annum in pay or compensation received for each of the preceding 7 years. If that means they must divest themselves of that “cute” ski chalet in Steamboat Springs or their summer “cottage” in Gstadt, so be it.

5. For the duration of the bailout, all CEOs and executives of any of these entities would be required to work for minimum wage until that entity is stabilized. If it's good enough for California's public servants, per Herr Schwarzenegger, why then, it should be fine and dandy for the high flyers who, through their own actions, caused the mess from which they now beg to be bailed out.

6. Start a pool to which Wall Street firms will “voluntarily” donate contributions to aid in the bailout. As we are so often told, our taxes are “voluntary” payments to fund the government; let Wall Street “voluntarily” aid themselves.

The above is far from a comprehensive list, however, it does provide a basis from which the Congress can start crafting some semblance of a viable bailout which will not favor the same gimlet eyed gamblers who benefited so handsomely while driving the economy off the cliff while further impoverishing the already stressed and strained taxpayer.

American Politics as Dr. Feelgood

You've been feeling down, seem to have a mass in your abdomen, and are having problems with defecation. So, you go to one doctor who examines you and tells you you have a tumor and must undergo serious, perhaps life-threatening surgery. So, you go to a second doctor who, after examining you, tells you it is nothing to be worried about, gives you a laxative and some pain pills and tells you to come back in 2 weeks if things don't get better.

If you are like the typical American, you accept the second diagnosis without further question, take the laxative and load up on pain pills. The American electorate hates nothing more than being told any “inconvenient truths”. We, the electorate, want to be told that, as in Lake Wobegon, “...all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.” We certainly don't want to hear that we have been serially lied to and misled by both parties. We don't want to hear that, through our profligate lifestyle, we may well have fatally damaged our biosphere, that to even think about remedying that damage we will have to seriously change our evil ways. This obvious obliviousness is best demonstrated by the chant of “Drill! Drill everywhere! Drill offshore! Drill in ANWR! Drill! Drill! Drill!” As has been perhaps best illustrated by Sarah Palin who, like most of her Alaskan neighbors, is 4 square behind drilling in ANWR, ignore the fact that, at best, this would only temporarily and slightly ease the problem of gasoline prices, if at all. Even more distressing, that drilling and the continued and increased use of hydrocarbons will only worsen the climatic problems that are already being evidenced. Palin has no problem whatsoever in dooming the polar bears to extinction, as a matter of fact, she has been a solid supporter of mounting legal challenges to the designation of polar bears as endangered species. Additionally, she has offered up a bounty of $150 per wolf killed (they tend to prey upon the moose and caribou she so loves to hunt).

Americans love to have their egos stroked, especially by their political “leaders” by being told that they are “exceptional” as in “American exceptionalism”. It would be useful if we actually looked at the definition of the word first:

exceptional

Pronunciation:

\ik-ˈsep-shnəl, -shə-nəl\

1: forming an exception : rare

2: better than average : superior

3: deviating from the norm: as a: having above or below average intelligence b: physically disabled~ Merriam-Webster

Of course, we like to believe that we fall into the first 2 definitions of the word, however, we should realize that “exceptional” also means:

Synonyms: aberrant, abnormal, atypical...

We always want to hear our politicians sing paeans to the “exceptional” America where “...God shed his grace on thee, And crown thy good with brotherhood, From sea to shining sea!” and damn all those who would bring up such “minor” aberrations as the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Native population, chattel slavery, manufactured wars (Mexican-American and Spanish-American) to facilitate land theft, etc. We certainly don't want to be told that any of our actions in our entire history have been anything other than beneficent. Of course, all of our wars, military incursions, sponsored coups, assassinations and other actions have always been for the benefit of others; never for the benefit of ourselves or the real owners of the political system, the wealthy and mega-corporations.

On those rare occasions when a politician does tell the American people the inconvenient truth, the American electorate immediately turns their back on that politician and raptly follows the current Pied Piper who will tickle their ego; even if this consists of pandering to the very basest of our predilections. And, like the patient who goes doctor shopping to find one who will tell them everything is OK, just take these pills and call me back later, we will be terminally surprised when we find ourselves dead on a slab because the “inconvenient” diagnosis of a tumor was correct all along.

A Georgian Riff

I have just about reached the end of my patience with the mindless propaganda regurgitations about the Russian-Georgian conflict. Enough!


Virtually every expostulation from the vaunted Western media, even the more even handed ones, has "cute" little phrases like, "We still don't know who fired the first shots that led to the Georgian military moving into South Ossetia Friday...". Hello! Isn't the very phrase "...the Georgian military moving into South Ossetia..." rather a telling one? Could it be the joint NATO-Georgian war games completed just prior to the Georgian blitzkrieg may have had something to do with it? Could it be that the main Georgian assault on Tskhinvali, which made NO distinction between military and civilian targets, have had something to do with things? And, as for the "brutal Russian counterattack on Georgia", when viewed from the perspective of targets attacked, was far more selective than the Georgian assault which ignited the instant conflict. Among all the tales of horror emanating from the multiple paps of the Western house organs, we are told of the "taking of Gori" and the "civilians fleeing in terror" from the advancing Russian horde. What we are definitely NOT told is that there was a major military base at Gori (as well as a good number of NATO and American military advisors). We are NOT told that much of the fleeing was done by the 'crack Georgian military' when Saakashvili's all or nothing bet came up a cropper.


Much of the Western "coverage", such as it is, portrays the "scrappy, spunky Western oriented" Georgia as a "democratic bulwark" based on a grassroots Western style democracy which sprang from the so-called "Rose Revolution" which catapulted the Harvard educated Saakashvili to power. What essentially all the Western coverage elides is the fact that the "Rose Revolution" was stage managed, fomented and funded by the West. It also neglects the fact that Saakashvili has been, from the outset, nothing more nor less than a Western sock puppet, bought and paid for by the West specifically to be a thorn in the side of Russia. And, by gosh, Georgia has been dutifully playing its part as such. Much like the snotty little kid who acts the bully on the schoolyard and, when challenged, calls on the services of a much older, much larger brute to act as his enforcer. In the case of Georgia, we, "the West" are that enforcer.


Also, I'm really impressed at the feigned horror of the Western propaganda organs at Russia's daring to "attack targets deep in Georgia, far from South Ossetia". Odd, when the US/NATO combine illegally attacked Yugoslavia in 1999, the very first attacks that opened that 79 day bombing campaign were aimed, not at targets in Kosovo but at Belgrade...hundreds of miles from Kosovo, I certainly didn't see any shock or horror evinced from the Western media. Quite the contrary, all the Western media, "liberal" and neoconservative, were howling for more blood. From the very outset many of the very same "pundits", "opinion makers", "foreign policy experts" who are now decrying Russia's quite legitimate actions were at the forefront in demanding more carnage, more lethality, just MORE in terms of aggression against Yugoslavia. The vast majority of Russia's attacks have been aimed at military targets in Georgia and were carried out with an eye to degrading Georgia's military capability. Have there been mistakes, collateral damage? Of course. But let us not forget, every time the US/NATO hit schools, hospitals, residential areas, trains, bridges, etc. in Yugoslavia, that too was "collateral damage" (even though the "collateral damage" in Yugoslavia was far and away more disproportionate to the military damage wrought). Not so with the Russians in Georgia to date. Though the Russians have struck Georgia proper, its targets have been military with the occasional stray ordnance, hardly the situation that applied to the US/NATO and their gang rape of Serbia in 1999. Hardly like the intentional bombing by NATO of hospitals (cluster bombing of the Niš hospital and its environs, for example), embassies (the very precise bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Beograd, for example), the bombing of Slobodan Milošević's private residence (with the admitted aim of assassinating him), etc. ad nauseam.

Have we looked in the mirror lately?

“Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate--and quickly.” ~ Lazarus Long from “TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE”, By: Robert Heinlein

The above quote from Robert Heinlein came to mind recently while vaguely listening to TV news. The story was about the 'heroes' returning from Iraq. It caused me to recall reading news stories and watching German newsreels about the Wehrmacht 'heroes' returning from the occupation of the Soviet Union. I recalled how all the Russians who were fighting against the Nazi occupiers were referred to as either 'bandits' or 'terrorists'. Odd, isn't that the same way we refer to the Iraqis who are fighting our 'heroes' in their country? Even more odd, I recalled the story of one of the Afghan detainees now in Guantánamo who is being held as a terrorist because he threw a hand grenade at the invading U.S. troops. As I seem to recall, those wascawy revolutionaries (Americans) were doing exactly the same thing to the British troops during the Revolutionary War. Oh, and BTW, the Brits were calling our Founding Fathers and the American Revolutionaries 'bandits' and 'terrorists' as well.

Though Thom Hartmann, among others, has made the point more than once, it needs to be repeated; what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan is in no wise a war, it is occupation, pure and simple. By all rules of civilized war (what an oxymoronic expression!) defending yourself, your family and your country from invaders is sanctioned under the Geneva conventions. And, to make matters worse, what we, America, have visited upon Afghanistan and Iraq is the prime war crime of 'waging a war of aggression'. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq threatened nor could realistically be called an existential threat to the United States, and that would be the only legal justification for waging war without UNSC imprimatur, which we did not have. Not that that makes any difference to us, it counted for absolutely nothing when the U.S. (NATO) engaged in a 79 day bombing war against Yugoslavia. The U.S. is now raising all kinds of accusations against the Russians for rushing troops in to South Ossetia to defend their own countrymen (cca. 90% of the population of South Ossetia are ethnic Russians), decrying Russia's intervention on it's own border (oh BTW, riddle me this, why do we never hear of North Ossetia? Maybe because it is part of Russia?). The intervention of the Russians was asked for by the leaders of the “breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia”. Yet, somehow, while the Americans are decrying Russia's intervention in South Ossetia (after 10 Russian peacekeepers had been killed by the Georgian military), they can't seem to see the utter hypocrisy of this position, especially while America is engaged in illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan stemming from illegal invasions. Odd, isn't it?

We 'love' the Iraqis (and Afghanis) so much that we call them “towel heads”, “hadjiis”, “camel jockeys”, etc. ad nauseam. Of course, to make it easier to murder fellow human beings, it helps to denigrate them and make them less than human. After all, didn't we call the American Indians “redskins”, “savages”, “beasts”? Didn't we call the Germans “Huns”, the Japanese “Nips”, “slant eyed devils”, the Vietnamese “gooks”?

I recall in my youth how Americans were puzzled how so cultured, educated and civil a people as the Germans could have possibly backed a regime as murderous and monstrous as the Nazis. Have we really looked in the mirror lately?

The Hopelessness of Lesser Evilism

“I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it.” ~ Eugene V. Debs

Eugene Debs said it all in the statement above. Election cycle after election cycle we are faced with a choice of bad or worse. Obamamania aside, what real “change” does his “Change we can believe in” offer? That certainly is not to suggest that John S. McCain would offer any more or any better change either. So, what are we left with? “Your execution is tomorrow morning. Would you rather be shot or hanged?” Quel choix!

One of the worst facets of our present predicament is that all the major sectors of our society; the political, the for profit media, the blogosphere and social norms, all push for the inevitability of the current duopoly. We are constantly told, “There is no other choice! You either back the Democrats or the Republicans; any other choice is a waste of your vote!” This is the device used, time and again, to neuter and emasculate any true populist movement, any progressive movement, any movement which is considered to be “outside the box”. “Well, I'm often told, “if the Democrats don't win (especially the Presidency) what will be of the Supreme Court! Just imagine what the Republican candidate would do to the Supreme Court!” True enough, but...what wonderful justices has the last Democratic president, William Jefferson Clinton, left us? Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer? Both are jurists whose outlook and opinions are quite corporate friendly. In Kelo v. City of New London, both Ginsburg and Breyer concurred in the extension of eminent domain in favor of corporations and to the detriment of private citizens or small stakeholders. My, isn't that just so 'progressive'?

“But, I'm told, “if we have McCain as president, then Roe v. Wade is history! What of a woman's right to choose?” Well, for those that haven't noticed, the several states, in the main, have been nibbling (sometimes gobbling) away at Roe v. Wade so there truly is little to lose at this point. What will happen if Roe goes the way of the dodo, is that we'll go back to the status ante, i.e., in more progressive states women with means will be able to get abortions; those without won't. That really isn't much of a change of the status quo, truth be told. Will there be states where a woman won't be able to get a legal abortion? Certainly. However, that is more or less the situation today. In many places in the United States as of this writing, women have to travel hundreds of miles, sometimes across state borders to get a legal abortion.

Also I hear, “But with the current make up of the court we at least have had some minor victories! After all, the present court reinstated habeas corpus!” True enough and, certainly, were more conservative jurists to be placed on the Supreme Court even these minor 'victories' might well be lost. However, it must be remembered, starting from the Reagan presidency, through Bush the Elder, Clinton and, especially Bush the Lesser, the lower courts have been seriously skewed to the right. There are now so many 'conservative' jurists serving that it is extraordinarily difficult to even get a case before the Supreme Court. Certainly, there are laudable exceptions, even among the reich wing coterie now infesting the benchs at the Circuit and Appellate levels. This is cold comfort though for the many that are turned away from the courthouse and the Democratic Congress has only made the situation much worse with their ill begotten FISA 'reform' legislation, granting retroactive (read: ex post facto) immunity to telecommunications companies who blatantly and with full foreknowledge, violated the existing FISA laws. And here I thought that “I was only following the orders of my superiors!” had been discredited at Nuremberg! Silly me.

We are all constantly told, “But, those that voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 gave Bush the presidency!” Oddly enough, many of these are the same people who, rightly IMHO, argue that, if all the votes had been counted in Florida in 2000, Gore would have won. To those “Democrats” (yes, I'm looking at you Eric Alterman, among others) who go into apoplectic fits when attacking the very concept of Ralph Nader, all I have to say is, “Pick ONE!” Either Gore actually would have won the election (had the Reich wing of the court not given the chosen one the election) OR the fraction of the voters that voted for Nader rather than Gore cost Gore the election (an extremely doubtful proposition). It is EITHER one or the other; you can't have both! The fact that Gore ran a rather bland and centrist campaign, with the misbegotten Lieberman as his running mate, doesn't seem to enter the equation.

Then there is the stolen election of 2004. Again, we had a rather bland campaign, run ineptly, with ABB (Anybody But Bush) as the mantra. The Democratic Party spent enormous time and money specifically to exclude Ralph Nader from as many states as possible BECAUSE the election was ABB. Well, they managed to narrow the choices, as John F. Kerry's campaign managed to narrow the differences between Republican and Democrat. In the end, even though AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE COUNT it was rather obvious that there had been egregious shenanigans executed, this time in Ohio as opposed to Florida. And we had the embarrassing spectacle of the very early capitulation, without any opposition on the part of Kerry (though even his running mate, Edwards, was livid at the campaign not challenging the obviously stolen election).

These are the fruits of 'lesser evilism'. We are constantly forced, by the rigged and managed primary and electoral process, to weed out any truly progressive voice from the campaign (the Democrats went so far as to field a primary challenger for Dennis Kucinich's House seat as well as numerous and various chicanery to exclude him early on from the primary race). After Kucinich was eliminated from the primaries, the attention of the Democratic machine turned on John Edwards, the next most progressive and possibly 'outside the box' candidate. What we, the populace, were left with were “a woman and a black” as candidates. Neither of the two remaining candidates was in any wise progressive (both are almost equally in thrall to the same corporate and financial task masters). In reality, there was very little difference between the 2 of them, in any substantive way. In the final analysis, we have a greater choice when in a Chinese restaurant and choosing “One from column 'A' or one from column 'B'!

What's wrong with the Democrats?

Are the Democrats really progressive?

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps the very worst problem afflicting the Democrats (of course, the same and worse bedevils the Republicans), is mindless acceptance of any orthodoxy put forth by the Democratic hierarchy. These are myriad and multiple and they hobble the thought pattern of the vast majority of those who style themselves as 'liberal' or 'progressive' Democrats.

Among these orthodoxies are:

1. The overriding insistence on 'gun control'. Quite simply, the Democratic Party has long insisted on, what is in essence, unilateral disarmament of the populace in the face of increased militarization of the various federal, state and local police agencies. The simplistic dual arguments are, a) what good is an armed populace when faced with the overwhelming power of the state and b) guns in the hands of the people are the basis for crime, school shootings, domestic violence, etc.
   
   Quite simply, both these arguments are bosh. If, as the commonly expounded thesis is framed, an armed populace can muster no resistance to overwhelming armed force, why are both the Iraqi and Afghani insurgencies proving to be such a massive problem to the world's sole remaining hyperpower? You mean we, the U.S., with the largest nuclear stockpiles, the most advanced military in the world, undeniable air, land and sea dominance, can't gain control of a society armed primarily with small arms and homemade weapons? Where does that leave that argument?
   
   The common Democratic meme is that "guns are evil!" According to this argument, it is the mere presence of guns that make society 'dangerous'. Of course, this neglects the fact that there are societies which are even more heavily armed, per capita, than the United States. Switzerland, for example, has virtually every home stocked with military weapons. Virtually every home has a military (i.e., fully automatic) rifle. Every 3rd house has an operating machine gun, every 5th house has an RPG (with ammunition). Canadians are as well armed, in terms of handguns and long guns, as the United States. Oddly enough, neither of these 2 heavily armed countries have anywhere near the level of gun violence as the United States. What the Democrats (and other gun grabbers) refuse to face is the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, there are social factors in the United States that lead to the high level of violent crime that we experience. The main reason, IMHO, for this is well encapsulated in a quote from Shakespeare:
   
   

   “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves if we are underlings.” ~ William Shakespeare quotes
   

   
   
   
2. The idiotic idea of 'political correctness' (which, BTW, is also embraced by the Republicans, on the other side of the spectrum). The government cannot, no matter what, force people to accept groups 'not like them'. This is not to say that the government doesn't have every right, even a positive duty, to withhold any semblance of government support (tax credits, tax rebates, special legislation, etc.) from any individual, group or entity that discriminates on the basis of age, race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. What it does say is that the government goes beyond the pale when it attempts to 'legislate' tolerance or even acceptance of people of different practices, no matter what those practices are. The Right has its demands for say, 'prayer in school'. Fine, you then legislate 'prayer in school', now on whose religion will that prayer be based? In areas where you have relatively homogenous religious communities, this may actually work. However, in any diverse area (virtually any town or city of any appreciable size) you will have a diversity of religions and religious practices. By favoring any particular religion or religious practice you will, automatically, be slighting others. So, you see the problem.
   
   On the left you have the demand that people 'accept' say people from the GLBT community. First and foremost, it is of NO concern (or should be of no concern) to any but the individuals involved what any person's sexual orientation is. It certainly should never be allowed to be the basis of any kind of discrimination (whether housing, employment or any other activity or social benefit). Certainly, you will have those who insist that if they are say, renting a property, they should be able to discriminate on any basis they choose. If this is the case then, again, should any discrimination on any basis (race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc.) occur, then the individuals/organizations so discriminating should be disallowed any federal, state or local benefit (tax breaks, etc.). As I said earlier, one cannot force tolerance or affection upon an individual, however, social pressure (especially by peers, co-congregants, relatives) can well modify social behavior.
   
   
3. The repeated acceptance of the 'lesser evil' argument in terms of Democratic candidates. The Democratic process, as has been seen in at least the last several election cycles, always tends to exclude truly progressive and independent candidates and favor 'Establishment friendly' candidates. This means that true progressives and progressive policies get short shrift from the Democratic Party as it increasingly panders to its most 'Establishment' (read: corporate friendly) candidates. In this way, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party (one could argue, the most energized and solid base of the party) has been increasingly disenfranchised and the policies championed by most true liberals and progressives fall by the wayside or are so dramatically emasculated as to render them meaningless. For example, in this presidential race we are faced with Tweedle Dee (war criminal John McCrazy) and Tweedle Dum (Barrack Obama). Both are solidly enmeshed in the concerns and affairs of their corporate backers (though the outcome would have been the same had it been McCrazy and HR Clinton). Early on in the contest, both by For Profit Media's not-so-benign neglect as well as their outright derision, truly progressive candidates such as Dennis Kucinich and, to a lesser degree, John Edwards, were sidelined and forced from the race. This is a recurring pattern that is seriously, if not fatally, undermining the so-called progressive Democratic Party. Today, the Democratic Party is in most particulars, barely distinguishable from the Republican Party.
   

If there is to be any semblance of hope for truly progressive and liberal Americans (more than likely, a solid majority of the populace) all the above will have to be overcome by a revolution from within the ranks of the Democratic Party itself.