by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 420 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 8:34:26 AM

  (0+)

"When the nation spends 52% of its discretionary spending on war and the materials of war, the people are obliged to say that enough is enough."

While this is true and implies an exorbitant amount, you have to look at what exactly is discretionary spending. Defined simply, discretionary spending are those items for which Congress explicitly determines how much to spend (or not spend) on an annual frequency. A better benchmark to use on military funding, though, is the amount spent vs. the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). When this is done, the result is that 3.7% of the GDP is associated with military spending (FY 2003).

While discretionary spending accounts for approximately one-third of all Federal outlays, the comparison of "nominal" dollar values of military spending vs. extended time periods fails to account for inflation; however, reviewing military spending as a percentage of the GDP does account for the inflation pressures and results in a more accurate picture. When viewed in this light, the United States is well behind the world leader of North Korea at 22.9% GDP in 2003.

An analogy that can be used here is comparing a Hollywood star's spending $1,200 on a designer purse, while most people would spend about $30 on the same item. This reflects the economies of scale between the two types of peoples' incomes. The equalizer here, though, is the percentage associated with the respective expenditures in relation to the incomes of the two types of peoples.

The use of the 52% discretionary figure within the context of the article, therefore, seems to be both misleading and designed to elicit an emotional response negative of the actual expenditure.

"When our soldiers come back from what they consider a noble cause and spread their altered DNA into our gene pool, isn't this cause for alarm?"

Being one of "they" and spreading around my altered DNA, does this imply that I am not one of the master race that YOU envision in this natural and organic gene pool? Applying this pretty-warped thinking to other scenarios, are personnel that work in the medical field with x-rays and electric utility with nuclear fission in power plants also spreading around their altered DNA? Let's round 'em all up then, pardna, and have us one, big ole bah-BEE-QUE!

Get real!

"They said Iraq would be a 'cakewalk'."

Who were they?  In all the military briefings I sat in on, not ONCE did I ever hear that Iraq would be a "cakewalk". In fact, the original battle estimates floated around were 9,000 KIA and between 35,000-40,000 WIA with a minimum of a 3-5 year occupation once initial combat activities were complete. Obviously, these estimates were wrong, but they certainly did not reflect a "cakewalk" attitude.

"A war with Iran would mean a nasty protracted war that would require re-institution of the draft. Chew on that while you try to complete your degree or when you look at your children."

FYI – a war with Iraq ALREADY requires a "nasty protracted war" that is currently being lead by "they", as you so eloquently described earlier. THEY do IT voluntarily while YOU wail and bemoan back here about IT. THEY already have to delay completing their degrees (AS IF that was the worst of THEIR troubles) and cannot look at THEIR children while deployed.

Be thankful YOU are not with THEY now, experiencing IT. However, "I see IT this way" in that a draft would enable YOU to achieve a better degree of humility (i.e., the quality or state of not being arrogant or assertive) and understand just what THEY are willing to do for YOU without a draft. And if YOU think that THEY are not doing IT for YOU, then by all means continue to speak against THEM but know NOW that THEY are the ones that protect YOUR right to yap YOUR trap about this clap – period.

YOU may THINK that YOUR rights have been dismantled by the illegal Bush Regime, but YOU cannot fathom BAD until you experience what THEY have experienced.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 10:16:33 AM

  (0+)

of your positions, with the excess verbiage removed:

1) The US (in your view) does not really spend too much on the military.

2) You feel personally insulted that Gatto correctly pointed out that there are potential public health hazards involved in exposing soldiers to radiation (DU). You're unable to even focus on whether or not there's a public health issue; you only see that aspects of the matter might apply to you personally, so you're angry. (It's all about you, right?)

3) You try to deny that "they" ever told us it would be a "cakewalk." This is not a very clever position, since probably every single reader here is well aware that US leaders indeed assured the public that the Iraq invasion would be a "cakewalk." (If you really want to know who "they" were, you could Google on the word "cakewalk".)

4) In your last point, you first presume to lecture Gatto that Iraq is "FYI...already a nasty protracted war." Gatto has written scores of articles about this, and is certainly at least as aware of it as you are.

Then the truth comes out -- but only by accident: what you're really angry about is that you feel that Gatto (who is ex-military himself) is not "supporting the troops" enough for your liking. Here, you make the classic rightwing blunder of confusing the purpose of the mission with "support" for the soldiers themselves. You write that the soldiers are protecting Gatto's right to free speech, but this hasn't the slightest bit of truth to it. The troops are over there murdering people for the profits of US multinationals -- they are not in any sense protecting anyone's "free speech" (except perhaps that of oil companies & weapons companies).

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:03:01 AM

  (0+)

By get real I guess you mean adopt your excessively hyperbolic interpretation.

Ih may not agree with Tom but he does have the right to express his opinion. I notice you didn't correct his figures or his concern blind attack is hardly rebuttle it's gain saying (tis...tis not).

Tom was chalange a number of issues Timothy raised.

One the actual portion of GDP spent on defense and the implication of his gene pool comment. The implications of Tim's statement should worry all thinking people. I was about to suggest to tim that he should revisit that point with a bit more thought. The soldiers if affected by depleated uranium have indeed gone through enough and don't need to be singled out as genetic polution. One could argue that there's enough there already but the whole concept is eugenics by another route.

Regardless of Tom's leaning, facts and keeping perspective are important parts of discussions. Isn't this why where here?

We could all learn from mistakes and deal with issues like this with more OBJECTIVITY.

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 1:57:27 AM

  (0+)

I meant to point out that they should be checked for radiation poisoning. It would be a sad thing to see them suffer more because of their service. I also noted that I had been through a similiar thing and I had no idea. Either did those affected by Agent Orange. Wehave an issue here that should be addressed. This is why I wrote this article. It isn't just hype. The consequences could beheartbreaking.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 6:08:34 AM

  (0+)

mislead in discussing this topic. Tom gave a simple number of "3.7% of GDP." But the meaning of such numbers depends on what's counted as "defense spending" -- and it's easy to play games with that, because the Dept of Defense does NOT account for all military spending.

For instance, look at the Wikipedia article on this subject, which gives an overall percentage of GDP for 2005 defense spending. This figure is what Tom said -- 3.7%. However, in the very first paragraph, this article explicitly warns that this percentage

...does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, e.g. $120 Billion in 2007).

Obviously, things like the war budget have to be counted to be at all meaningful. Also nuclear weapons spending has to be counted, and vets' affairs, and so forth. Furthermore, a large proportion of interest on the national debt is due to past defense spending.

Additionally, in making comparisons to other countries, there's a non-trivial question of how spending is measured. Even in discussions of GDP alone (ie, discussions having nothing to do with defense), the results look very different if you measure in PPP ("purchasing power parity") or USD (nominal value US dollars).

As with economists, if you ask 10 different experts on the budget what is the percentage of GDP that the US spends on the military, you'll get 10 different answers. The Wikipedia article gives a number of references on this subject. The second one is an article titled  The Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Is Already Here . Here's the first para of that article:

When President George W. Bush presented his budget proposals recently for the fiscal year 2008, he ... (proposed) that the Pentagon’s outlays be increased by more than 6 percent beyond its estimated outlays for fiscal 2007, to a total of more than $583 billion. Although many Americans regard this enormous sum as excessive, hardly anyone appreciates that the total amount of all defense-related spending greatly exceeds the amount budgeted for the Department of Defense. Indeed, it is roughly almost twice as large...

I've seen numerous such articles. So, roughly speaking, GDP is currently about 12 trillion. Total military spending might be over a trillion. So the real percentage of GDP might be over 8.3%. And that doesn't include all the arms sales done by American private business, a figure that's doubtless enormous.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:19:37 AM

  (0+)

Why don't you blockade the networks and demonstrate against their timidity in telling the truth?

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1757 comments [112 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:42:52 AM

  (0+)

There needs to be a list of Network Advertisers by Network on the Internet. This way the people could stop as much as possible from buying products from companies doing the advertising. The only thing that might get their attention is a reduced bottom line.

by Anton Grambihler (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 314 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 1:59:08 AM

  (0+)

In 1984, Winston Smith lives in London which is part of the country Oceania. The world is divided into three countries that include the entire globe: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. Oceania is a totalitarian society led by Big Brother, which censors everyone's behavior, even their thoughts. Winston is disgusted with his oppressed life and secretly longs to join the fabled Brotherhood, a supposed group of underground rebels intent on overthrowing the government. Winston meets Julia and they secretly fall in love and have an affair, something which is considered a crime. One day, while walking home, Winston encounters O'Brien, an inner party member, who gives Winston his address. Winston had exchanged glances with O'Brien before and had dreams about him giving him the impression that O'Brien was a member of the Brotherhood. Since Julia hated the party as much as Winston did, they went to O'Brien's house together where they were introduced into the Brotherhood. O'Brien is actually a faithful member of the Inner-Party and this is actually a trap for Winston, a trap that O'Brien has been cleverly setting for seven years. Winston and Julia are sent to the Ministry of Love which is a sort of rehabilitation center for criminals accused of thoughtcrime. There, Winston was separated from Julia, and tortured until his beliefs coincided with those of the Party. Winston denounces everything he believed him, even his love for Julia, and was released back into the public where he wastes his days at the Chestnut Tree drinking gin.  http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

Mr. Gatto is correct in that we must step-up our actions.  I have been researching NoWarNoWarming (www.nowarnowarming.org) and feel they offer some solid suggestions on how we can move forward.   

by Maryrose Asher (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 11:58:22 AM

  (0+)

I went through that resolution. It's scary if taken in a broad sense. I'm just glad it's a Congressional move and not an executive proposal. Literally it defines "violent extremism or innsurection" and also had a disclaimer about infringing on civil liberties. Taken as a blueprint its very unsettling. Keep up the good work on staying on top of things, we need more people like you.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 12:04:37 PM

  (0+)

(1) The reference to the military and discretionary spending was immaterial, as it was used in the overall context of the article. Even if this didn't matter, the U.S. (in the global summary and NOT my view) "does not really spend too much on the military" - click here .

(2) I agree there is a potential health hazard to the exposed individuals (soldiers or not). I do NOT agree with his statement that by returning to the normal world and "doing what humans do", they will taint the gene pool for the other "normal" humans. To advance such a theory is tantamount to proclaiming that in some way there IS a master race. By isolating those exposed to DU as being compromised genetically when there are clearly numerous other examples is a misrepresentation of the issue that deserves a correction, reflecting the silliness of the statement's initial thought.

I took no personal insult nor was I angry at the statement. I was, though, amazed at its blatant use of ignorance.

(3) Where do you read "cakewalk" in these statements?

"I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult." – President George W. Bush http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html .

"Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come." – President George W. Bush http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html .

"Anybody that thinks this is going to be quick and easy is wrong." – Gen. Richard B. Meyers http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=29245 .

"It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog." – Donald Rumsfeld http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/22/sprj.irq.main/index.html .

Kenneth Adelman, as a member of the civilian Defense Policy Board, did comment in February 2003 that, "...demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk," but his comment did not reflect those of the actual policy makers, as detailed above. It was only after the media's vision of a Desert Storm War was tested and WMDs were not readily apparent did we start seeing the media claims that the Administration sold America on the Iraq War being "easy".

Perhaps and given that I was mobilized in February 2003, I was made more aware of the possible war's difficulties than others. However, this does not invalidate my opinion that reasonable people should have known in 2003 that an Iraq War would be difficult. I think, though, that most chose to view the pending military action through the lens of the Desert Storm War, which had NO validity.

(4) If he is aware of Iraq being as such, then say so and NOT presume it so with a connection to a fictitiously pending war with Iran. He's condemning the future based upon the past, which is largely unconstructive and demoralizing. I could make negative comments about the future endlessly and base them on what has happened in the past, but they do not add to any solution for mitigating a probability. The negative comments only channel the reader into adopting a biased thought process.

As to your vision of my "truth", read my thoughts on why it's foolish to express the belief "I support the troops but not the war" - http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_kevin_go_071001_rush_limbaugh_expose.htm . By default and Gatto as a retired Army sergeant can testify to this point, all enlisted and/or commissioned military personnel take an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. While it's quaint that you (and others in a slim minority) think that the Bush Regime is a domestic enemy, reality and the majority do not see the issue that way. The enemy in this case IS foreign and does threaten the Constitution. The First Amendment is part of the Constitution; therefore, the military IS supporting Gatto "right to free speech".

This logic, though, doesn't apply ONLY if you're willing to state that the military is filled with drone-like idiots who follow directly but never ponder the morality of the orders that are issued to them. Making a statement such as this is very far from the truth, as Gatto through his posting only verifies.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 1:14:39 PM

  (0+)

support all US wars. Once the military has been sent in, you believe that the time for discussion & dissent is finished. You specifically reject the argument of "I support the troops but not the war" -- which means you demand everyone accept the war, too, just because the troops are there.

Your own words reflect an incredibly naive & inaccurate conception of how the US political system works. You write, "The purpose of the troops is to implement ... the will of the people who are represented via a democratic republic collectively termed the U.S. Congress."  That's baloney. The US Congress does not represent the will of the people. It represents only large corporations, like Halliburton, ExxonMobil, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing & so on.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 2:04:08 PM

  (0+)

Rich,

As I said before I don't agree with Tom. But neither can I morally agree with the absence of one automatically means the exact opposite.

The war is obscene but the US and coailition started it and they have a moral obligation to fix it.

Neither can the US simply stop funding leaving the troop in a parless position. Clearly it's a horse before the cart ie change, stop the war THEN bring the troops home.

Practically speaking there are several steps to this the first must be change the  Commander in Chief due to the mechanics of numbers in Congress this is going to be a waiting game.

I have suggested that the numbers might be used to pass bills aimed at prosecution of  Pres & Veep and benefiting corps.

They could be passed but not given assent waiting for the new presumably Dem Administration. These bills would be a great bargaining tool esp if the Greedy corps were under the gun.

What do you think? 

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 2:14:32 AM

  (0+)

Time to Boycott Voting

Joel S. Hirschhorn

After many years of political disappointment, more progressives, liberals and conservatives – and certainly moderates and independents – know in their hearts that voting for Democrats or Republicans is a waste.  Just imagine if voter turnout was cut to 25 percent or less!  Let the whole world see Americans boycotting a broken and corrupt political system and rejecting what has become a delusional democracy.  To keep voting in an unjust political system makes us willing political slaves that the rich and powerful elites exploit.

Just leaving the major parties is not good enough and, besides, most Americans are not party members.  We need a bolder strategy.  We must humiliate the political elites in both major parties and the corporate interests that support both of them.  We can send a shock wave throughout the political establishment by not voting in the 2008 presidential election.

Stop playing THEIR game.  Take back control.  Take back YOUR nation.  Time to boycott voting.  This strategy is consistent with the thinking of Gandhi and King: peaceful resistance to political tyranny that can bring the corrupt system to its knees.  Ultimately, the most effective protest is through civil disobedience – to visibly and stubbornly refuse to respect what has become a corrupt, untrustworthy system.  Before it can be fixed it must be deconstructed and then rebuilt.  Taxation with MISrepresentation means we need a Second American Revolution; it must begin – not with violent action – but with massive withdrawal by citizens that have seen the light.  We have a good head start with about half of eligible voters already so turned off that they don’t vote.  Obviously that has not been sufficient to change the system.

There will be negative, defensive knee-jerk reactions to this audacious strategy.  Let’s examine them:

Many will think that taking such action violates our responsibility as citizens.  But taking that responsibility seriously as engaged citizens in the Jeffersonian sense must reflect that there is still a valid contract between citizens and their government.  When we vote we have the right to a political system that respects we the people and gives us an authentic representative democracy.  We have a right to a constitutional republic operating under the rule of law.  But we have elected representatives that no longer have the public interest as their primary commitment, nor truly honor and respect our Constitution.

They have been corrupted by corporate and other special interests that fund their campaigns to get the laws, loopholes and largesse they want.  They have been corrupted by power and the perks of office.  They are political cowards and mostly intellectual midgets.  The two major parties have a stranglehold on our political system that no longer merits our participation in their crooked game.  Political parties are not part of our Constitution and the two-party duopoly has demonstrated that both Democrats and Republicans put their own interests above those of we the people, our nation and our democracy.  We cannot vote our way out of our current, dreadful political system.

Whether you are on the political left or right, you will fear that not voting will help put in office people that support policies your abhor.  But decades of objective political reality tell us that even people from the party that we align with do not, when elected, fulfill their promises and our hopes.  Sadly, most Americans have become lesser-evil voters, deluding themselves that this is the best, least worse, yet awful choice.  Instead of feeling bad about voting for candidates that we know in our hearts are not worthy of our votes and public office, we must have the courage to say “enough is enough; I will not play in this shameful game any longer.”  We must stop legitimizing and abetting our disgraceful government.

Many may fear that not voting sets a terrible example to children.  But isn’t it more important to tell America’s children that true patriotism must reveal itself by rejecting a political system that no longer merits respect?  Thomas Jefferson believed in periodic rebellion.  Now is the time for all good Americans to come to the rescue of their nation, peacefully by boycotting elections.

The small number of third party members may be screaming: yes, don’t vote for Democrats and Republicans; come over and join us!  I have been a strong third party supporter, but we must face the painful truth.  The two major parties have so rigged the political system in their favor and against third parties that voting for third party candidates for federal office is a futile action.  We must first boycott voting to create sufficient pressure to open the system to genuine political competition.  That requires a number of electoral reforms, possible if the nation gets its first Article V convention (see www.foavc.org).  With reforms we can increase voter turnout to over 90 percent, as routinely seen in other democracies.

False patriotism may cause some to think that we must not show anti-American nations and terrorists that our government no longer has the trust of its citizens.  But that has already been widely disseminated by endless polls and surveys, including the recent Zogby poll that found a record-low 11 percent support for Congress.  Better to show our enemies that we the people have finally awakened and decided to re-assert our sovereignty and restore American democracy.  Loyalty to country, yes; loyalty to government, no.  Our populist American insurgency must begin with a boycott of voting.

Proof that this extraordinary strategy can work is that by now diehard Democrats and Republicans reading this are squirming in discomfort.  So spread the word, if you have not deluded yourself about voting the nation into a far, far better place.  Time to boycott voting.  Join the picket line; admit that none of the above is the only rational decision when the choices the two major parties give us for federal officials are not worth a dime.

Voting in a delusional representative democracy is as harebrained as voting even though you know votes will not be honestly counted – which many fear may be true.  We may have lost control of our government, but we still control our voting.  Time to walk away from the brainwashing and fiction that it really matters which Democrat or Republican you vote for in primaries and general elections for federal office.  Power elites want us to believe that.  They collude with the corporate mainstream media that make tons of money from campaigns and want you to stay glued to suspenseful horse races.  Loud-mouth political pundits that narrate the races are democracy’s enemies.  We must stop watching and listening to the political entertainment designed to keep us obediently mesmerized, as if the game is honest.  Without an audience, these phony races and media circus will disappear.

Don’t be fooled by the large number of candidates in the Democratic and Republican presidential primaries.  It is a sham – a scheme to keep spectators glued to the illusory competition.  Ron Paul has as much chance of being the Republican nominee as Dennis Kucinich has of being the Democratic nominee.  With power elites controlling both major parties, zero chance for them and the other minor candidates, regardless of their grassroots support.  Reflect on how both major parties accept lots of candidates in televised debates in the primary season.  But come the general election with prime time televised presidential debates they keep out third party candidates that desperately need that exposure to rally meaningful support.  Such is the hypocrisy and disdain of the two-party duopoly.

Come Election Day in 2008 we should party and celebrate (with TVs turned off) our populist boycott of voting and enjoy the camaraderie of fellow patriots.  We must help them resist any late urge to vote, because by then millions of dollars will be spent by many special interests to make us feel guilty and ashamed if we do not vote.  I can hear Paul Revere now: The liars are coming!  The liars are coming!  All that advertising and pundit-screaming to herd us back into the voting booths will verify that our boycott strategy works.

With having the votes of only a small minority of the electorate, whoever becomes president will have no public mandate except major, systemic political reforms that satisfy the will of the people.  Either that or accept being the president of a fake democracy on the world scene.

Be brave.  Stick together.  Save voting for a reformed political system worthy of respect and participation.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government that presents many electoral and other reforms; he can be contacted through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.  Formerly, he was a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association.]

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 2:19:15 PM

  (0+)

Where you do not comment on the four specific points and given that "silence is golden", I'm glad we agree that you erred in your translation of my words - now for my last assertion and your response.

"The US Congress does not represent the will of the people."

If you believe this assertion to be true, then from a logical perspective all your arguments – whether pro or con with regard to supporting the troops – fail.

If the people elected Congress, and Congress supported the President, and the President ordered the troops into Iraq, then the troops supported the people. But you seem to claim, "The corporations bought and, thus, elected the Congress, and the Congress may or may not have supported the President, and the President ordered the troops into Iraq, then the troops support the large corporations." – doesn't make much sense does it?

This doesn't work because the President or Executive is still ordering the troops as the Commander-in-Chief and not Congress (i.e., Congress only supports the use of military force) - unless, of course, you're alleging that the Executive does not uphold the Constitution, as he swore in his oath of office, and supports the large corporations also. In which case, it doesn't matter if Congress represents the will of the people or not.

And yet, you offer no proof that demonstrates conclusively that Congress, "...represents only large corporations, like Halliburton, ExxonMobil, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing & so on." I'm aware that some people claim this corporate connection, but to my knowledge I haven't seen a compelling legal case that has exposed the extent of such corruption, as claimed by you.

And where the judiciary is a check upon the legislature, the legal case perspective has merit – unless, of course, you're alleging that the judiciary does not represent the Constitution... But this allegation would only bring us back to the logical failure mentioned previously.

Wow, nobody is representing anything anymore!

Regardless, the Congress/non-Congress statement by you is a feint attack trying to draw attention away from your other and more damning assertion that I, "...demand everyone accept the war, too, just because the troops are there." Firstly, I demand nothing. And secondly, just because the troops are there doesn't result in the need for all Americans to support all wars. The troop presence only requires that WE watch closely what is being said and done in our name as a people and a nation.

If you disagree with the troop presence, then vote for those legislators that support your view. But don't get bent when the majority of Americans don't side with your view or – even worse – you claim that the majority is only sheep and you are the One possessed of the true Truth. To the extent that our troops are present in Iraq and represent our collective, I believe they should be supported.

If you don't support the war, then clearly you don't support the troops and should be honest and say as such. However, too many people do NOT say that yet expect that and think (as a result) that Congress as a whole does not represent them. Think again.

As to the comments by another that urge Americans not to vote, read George Bernard Shaw, "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." Ask not, want not.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 3:39:31 PM

  (0+)

You are the very definition of what most non-thinking Americans have come. I think you believe that all people should be of one mind. A kind of collective group think. In your world individual thought is abnormal. Good luck with that. You have a lot of company in this administration.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 5:36:57 PM

  (0+)

And yet, you offer no proof that demonstrates conclusively that Congress, '...represents only large corporations, like Halliburton, ExxonMobil, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing & so on.' I'm aware that some people claim this corporate connection, but...haven't seen a compelling legal case that has exposed the extent of such corruption, as claimed by you. "

It's not my job to educate you. I don't have the time, but luckily, there have been many great books written on this very subject. I can refer you to these books, if you like. // I've read these books. You haven't. Your conceptual framework is impoverished, as a result.

Incidentally, in the Rob Kall thread, you expressed admiration for Mark Twain. Did you know that Twain despised US militarism & imperialism?

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 6:29:20 PM

  (0+)

I agree with you 100%, Sargeant.  Politicians are useless at this point.  We need our best progressives brainstorming to get on this thing going now, as you've said.  I don't know if Pelosi is just over her head and unconscious or simply a whore.  Either way, it's bad.  I like Reid personally, but he's shown absolutely no leadership either as a progressive or as an American who is in a position to protect us from the fascists. Thanks, again, very much for your contribution.

by kevns007 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 7:26:37 PM

  (0+)

Dubya Gump is driving the train over a cliff and when he attacks Iran then Russia and China are going to blow our homeland to hell and back. There is a reason Einstein was able to work on the atom bomb and that is because he moved his ass out of Germany before it was bombed to hell and back. I'm thinking Australia sounds like a nice vacation....

by Ben Marble, M.D. (23 articles, 0 quicklinks, 230 diaries, 349 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 7:56:01 PM

  (0+)

Individual thought should always be highly sought and prized. Such thought is usually the wellspring of innovation and nuanced interpretation of former ideas. Such thought, though, always exists within a socio-economic and political environment that we like to call "society". Indeed, sometimes such thinking is a direct result of the society itself. Webster.com defines society as "a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests". Note the words common and collective in the definition. To think that all peoples in a society can put their thoughts into activities or actions individually is, with specific regard to the term society, utopian, naïve, and doomed to implicit failure - as history has shown over and over again (Marx and Engel failed Psychology 101). "You are the very definition of what most non-thinking Americans have come [sic]. I think you believe that all people should be of one mind. A kind of collective group think. In your world individual thought is abnormal." For the record, I don't believe in the Borg Collective as a model for any society, however charming Seven of Nine's assimilation might be. Interestingly, the quote above is a critical assessment of my thoughts based upon only several posts on the serious topic of radical change being needed to effect, of all things, change. Increasingly and certainly here at OpEdNews.com, if a poster expresses an assertion or view that's similar to the majority in society, they are labeled as "non-thinking" or "sheeple" or "mindless". Has it ever occurred to the labelers that such assertions or views are also based upon individual thought on the same data yet result in differing conclusions? Of course not, how could a non-thinker... think... in such a way so as to produce ANY assessment? I hope we see that we have the start of a Borg Collective from those that claim individual thought is desired and needed to effect change. "You can think any way you want provided it's our way." Otherwise, you're a non-thinker whose assertions are wasted on those that... think. How silly! In "my world" individual thought is rewarded for its accomplishment with the collective support and acknowledgment of the people. Thus, I have silly thoughts like the soldiers should be supported because of the war and its purposes. I know this is a reactionary world for those that express individual thought readily. Understandably in the progressive world, the individual is mandated to think in a politically correct and mediocre manner that forces all to adopt a collective group consciousness that avoids marginalizing poor performers and highlighting over achievers – all this tweaking in an attempt to not "hurt" any one member's "feelings". Society's purpose is "there to care" for your individually collective thoughts so that you avoid promoting a reactionary world. However and in the progressive world, only the select and obviously gifted Ones appear to know how to think correctly as an individual. It is not the place of these Ones, though, "to educate" others - especially non-thinking individuals. After all, the Ones "don't have the time" to waste on a flawed individual when so many other and more promising peoples think similar to themselves. "[B]ut luckily, there have been many great books written on [individual vs. corporate thinking]" Sometimes, a few posts reveal to the Ones that such books have not been read by the non-thinkers. As a result, the non-thinker's "conceptual framework is impoverished". Sounds tragic but Animal Farm-ish, doesn't it? Alas, this impoverished and clearly flawed individual, who is an apparent non-thinker, must continue to wallow in the blackness that is "his world" and... despair. Thankfully, a sliver of light or two is allowed to pass through by the Ones that points out the glaringly obvious - even to a non-thinker - such as a writer's position on matters of war. The Ones, being focused on the individual thought, could not possibly note the irony cast by non-thinker for its clearly silly and foppish nature.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Oct 29, 2007 at 10:06:22 PM

  (0+)

It's not the case that your ideas are being rejected because you're an "independent thinker." It's not the case that the people who are rejecting your conclusions do so out of "political correctness," or because they've been "forced  to adopt a collective group consciousness."

Rather, it's because your ideas are not well thought out, & are based on invalid premises. For instance, you write, "Thus, I have silly thoughts like the soldiers should be supported because of the war and its purposes..."

You think you're being cute with sarcasm here, but you're kidding yourself. The war is a monstrous crime -- an imperialist war of aggression. Just because it's the US government doing it, doesn't make it automatically "good." It's false to say the soldiers "should be supported because of the war and its purposes," because its purposes stink, and the war itself is criminal. A criminal war is not a reason to "support the soldiers." It's a reason to withdraw the soldiers, to stop them from committing more crimes.

If you want to argue why you think the war is good and justifiable, go ahead and try. People here will tear your arguments apart. Then you can feel sorry for yourself some more -- or face up to the fact that your problem is not that you "think independently;" it's just that you're plain wrong.

Another major thing you're wrong about is that you don't even know that the US Congress no longer reflects the will of the US population. That's a rather large thing to be totally unaware of. You'd have to do a lot of reading and thinking to catch up -- it's a long story. Start by turning off your TV. Then read some Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, Michael Parenti, Wm Blum, Chalmers Johnson, Kevin Phillips, Antonia Juhasz, & maybe Robert Parry & Naomi Klein. Then you won't sound like such a self-pitying self-deceiving confused rightwing nitwit.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 2:27:49 AM

  (0+)

A nation of snarling barking dogs?    America needs "THE DOG WHISPERER. 

by davy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 240 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 3:49:09 AM

  (0+)

"...[I]t's because your ideas are not well thought out, & are based on invalid premises."

Okay, that's your opinion only and not an established fact. I'll let my posts here speak for themselves. If after reviewing them one concludes that they are not well-thought and based on invalid premises, then so be it. This opinion, though, can certainly swing both ways but is not useful to meaningful dialogue surrounding the issues raised by articles here.

"You think you're being cute with sarcasm here, but you're kidding yourself."

I'm neither "cute" (perhaps "tasty" but never cute) nor am I kidding myself. I'm using a passive aggressive approach to provoke a response from the reader. I had tried earlier in other posts to use an assertive approach but that appeared to have been largely lost based upon some of the other posters' comments.

"A criminal war is not a reason to 'support the soldiers.'"

No governmental entities (internal or external to America) - other than a fair number of Left-minded individuals that pretend to be a quasi-government - have ruled the war illegal. In fact, an equally fair number of people believed the war was legal at the start, given the reasons outlined here - http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sheila_s_071015_in_the_kingdom_of_fe.htm . I realize that you'll have to read my not well-thought ideas and invalid premises, but we all have crosses in life to carry - "Embrace the Suck".

"If you want to argue why you think the war is good and justifiable, go ahead and try."

Okay, I have tried in my link above to explain why the war was "justifiable", although I think the use of that term is usually reserved for war and morality. "Legal" works better here. As to whether or not the war was "good", that's an easy answer in that no war is ever "good". Don't confuse your apples and oranges or good and justifiable as being linked intimately for they most certainly are not. Why you would even want to link the two terms is clear in that you want to associate my thoughts with them, which is not the case - you wascawwy wabbit, you!

"...[Y]ou don't even know that the US Congress no longer reflects the will of the US population. That's a rather large thing to be totally unaware of. You'd have to do a lot of reading and thinking to catch up -- it's a long story. Start by turning off your TV. Then read some Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, Michael Parenti, Wm Blum, Chalmers Johnson, Kevin Phillips, Antonia Juhasz, & maybe Robert Parry & Naomi Klein."

Not to be rude here, but all I could think of when reading this quote was the scene from "Ferris Bueller" when the Dad calls to check on how Ferris is doing:

Ferris: Dad, all this talking has made me kind of light-headed. I think I ought to lie down

Dad: Wrap a hot towel round your head.

Ferris: Wrap a hot towel round my head?

Dad: Make some soup, then get a nap. Ferris, I love you, pal

Ferris: I love you, too

Silliness aside and using your reasoning with all that referenced "book learnin", is it correct then to presume that "Jesus loves me for the Bible tells me so"? I prefer to experience life first and then build a framework against which to hang my not well-thought ideas. To the extent that another person's thoughts can assist you in building the framework – great! But the primary driver should be you and your experiences and not another's; otherwise, you could be labeled as one of the "sheeple" who are, by default, non-thinkers.

As to Congress no longer reflecting the "will of the people" (which is different than We the People), you (and the extensive list of authors) assert that the term "people" is now restricted to corporations because the legislators are "bought off" by big campaign donor monies. While I agree that our current process of running political campaigns is troubled and in need of repair, I do not think that such troubles allow us to throw the baby out with the bath water, as Gatto's article appears to assert.

A reasonable argument can be made that "We the People" made our bed by not participating in the political process with depressed voter turn outs in local, state, and Federal elections. Nature abhors a vacuum as does political power. If there's been a usurpation of the representation of Americans, then Americans are largely responsible and should act (e.g., research, participate, debate, vote, etc...) to amend their previous "errors of omission".

"Then you won't sound like such a self-pitying self-deceiving confused rightwing nitwit."

Tsk, tsk, tsk... How this statement adds value to any of the discussion is beyond me, but obviously, there was a "need" for it to be said. And the other person's needs are just as valid as my own, or so I'm lectured on here – even IF the needs of one reflect those of a a self-pitying, self-deceiving, confused rightwing nitwit. "Me head hurts, me feet stink, and I don't love Jesus anymore." Jethro is leaving the building on this one to go and have him a swim in the cee-ment pond.

My apologies if, once again, others are thinking that I'm being "cute" or even "tasty" with this post. The Devil made me do it, I swear!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 9:37:32 AM

  (0+)

It's no doubt always possible to construct a plausible justification for anything. A skillful lawyer can argue persuasively on behalf of his client, no matter what the client has done. That's mostly a function of the lawyer's skill, & need not bear much relation to what the client has actually done.

Your attempt to justify the war first asserts that "the use of that term (ie, "justifiable") is usually reserved for war and morality. "Legal" works better here." Says who, that "legal" works better here? You're already trying to shift the terms of the argument. Talking about "legal" allows you to use past & recent actions of the US Congress, & attempt to justify the Bush admin's actions by saying they complied with Congress. This is no justification, because the Congress is unfortunately not the gold standard for international justice. As you point out yourself, "To claim Treason in impeachment would also ...charge the Congress with the same crime, which is a logical nightmare in that the people trying to determine whether to convict the president should also be charged with the identical crime..." That's unfortunately precisely the situation: both the administration & the Congress are complicit in the crime.

There are several points where you come close to grappling with the core of the matter. One is where you say, "But I honestly think the Treason charge would not hold water in a Congressional adjudication given that a number of other presidents...also committed the country on a course of war for what were justifiable reasons at the time." Here you try to justify the Iraq crime by saying that former presidents did much the same thing. It's true that former presidents have done the same thing, but that hardly justifies it. For instance, LBJ concocted an immense lie about the Gulf of Tonkin, & used it as a pretext for escalation of the Vietnam War. Johnson should also have faced an international tribunal for that, as Reagan should have, for his crimes in Central America; and Nixon, for Chile.

You come close again with "Kofi Annan thought otherwise by referencing the U.N Charter and its violations as making the Iraq invasion illegal but by this standard, the Kosovo intervention by NATO was also illegal." Yes, the Kosovo intervention was also illegal, & based on lies. The fact that this standard would also make Kosovo illegal does NOT mean that Iraq was legal. In other words, your use of the clause following the word "but" is not really a counter-argument, though it's intended to sound like one.

Don't you think the boys at the Heritage Foundation, with their nice fat grants from Scaife & Coors, could have concocted lovely-sounding position papers justifying, say, anything that was done by the Nazis? It was all just "self defense," they might well have argued. One could easily justify the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on the same "pre-emptive" grounds laid out by the 2002 "National Security Strategy" of the US. // Suppose we went back to 2003, and a US rival like China or Russia made the exact same arguments about Iraq's (non-existent) WMD being a "threat." Suppose Russia had invaded & occupied Iraq instead -- beating us to the punch, using the exact same "justifications" that the US used. Would you see any problem with that? I wonder what the Heritage Foundation, & US Congress & media would have said, in that case.

Without getting lost in a maze of detailed historical reference & counter-argument, the US invaded Iraq in 2003 claiming that Iraq was a "threat" to America's national security. This is a laughable proposition, on its face. A tiny 3rd world country that had been strangled by sanctions for a decade after being devastated by the world's most powerful military, was going to risk instant & certain vaporization, by attacking the US with WMD. A lie like this would be funny if it weren't so terrible.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 11:38:43 AM

  (0+)

promoting an Emergency Convention and the Popular Front  for  a long time. I would also  explain again that  the arguments  about soldiers, troops and Congress are over: we here are fighting for survival. Thus we need all Anti- Bush forces to unite and put aside the bickering.  There are conservatives on www.antiwar.com. They are our allies.  All those debates about freedom of speech are irrelevant now because  THERE IS NO FREEDOM, thus no freedom of  speech either. Get real.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 at 1:22:25 PM

  (0+)