Dick Cheney's Implication: Let's Fight Terror with Terror

RE: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/us/politics/11cheney.html?_r=1&hpw

His name sounds like a title character leftover from a gay bondage superhero porn that went way over budget.

He rides saddle back with Karl "Messenger of God" Rove, like the ambiguously gay duo back to the future part two. Thet work to guarantee that Cheney's own gay daughter never gets to marry. They proliferate a notion of American morality viz a viz the legal eradication of "same marriage."

Daddy makes up for little Mary Cheney's troubles with the promise of a fat inheritance courtesy, no doubt, of Halliburton whose board he sat on prior to his position as VP of the United States of America. As VP, Cheney awarded some phat oil contracts in Iraq to this company despite the obvious conflict of interest. But there's was no time for Halliburton-gate in times of war, much less those that no no end.

Of course, who can forget this all occured following invasion of Iraq on the threat of a hoax that Dick Cheney perpetuated; to this day, we have not found a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, much less one that presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America. Nonetheless, Dick Cheney advanced a policy in Iraq made America, by definition, a terrorist nation. I wonder if Dick Cheney chuckled to himself late at night at how easy re-branding and marketing terrorism can be in America; "pre-emptive strike" isn't even that catchy of a campaign. But I guess catchiness isn't necessary when you have the federal budget, degrees of legitimacy, and the media at your disposal.

If it weren't enough to simply fight terror with terror, Vice President Dick Cheney then took unprecedented action to authorize internationally illegal interrogation techniques against prisoners of war that the Geneva conventions define as torture. He then led a similar semantics quelling campaign to redefine torture in America under the less emotionally inciting banner of "advanced interrogation techniques." Again, catchiness means little in marketing campaigns with limitless channels of distribution and the federal budget.

Today, in defiance of his own questionable definition of patriotism, Dick Cheney has become the de-facto leader of a campaign against President Obama. This is nothing short of a concentrated campaign discredit President Obama's authority as the leader of the free world and continue the fear-mongering that he orchestrated from behind the curtains of President George W. Bush as if America were Oz and he himself is the great and powerful wizard hereof.

(Somewhere between then and now, W realized that he had had been fooled too often by the old gas guzzlin' fart he appointed Vice President. W grew a brain somewhere and has since teamed up with Bill Clinton to give speaches domestically; internationally he triest to make it up to Canada here and there for a solo gig.)

Meanwhile, the Dickmeister continues to talk. In fact, he talks more now than he ever did when he ran the country. He's like the micro-machine guy back in the 80's only he's talking about more than toy cars. He's actually attempting to sabotage a sitting President who's doing a far better job of managing America in 100 days than old Dicky and his great and powerful President could manage in 2,920 days.

Unfortunately because of unacceptable behind-closed-doors policies like torture and terrorism, Dick Cheney's prophecy could well be of the self-fulfilling variety. I think even Cheney himself underestimated President Obama's ability to advance hope and change as quickly as he has. But America is not in the clear, and we should be ready to unite as a nation behind our President as he undertakes the necessary measures to restore America position as a nation of diplomacy and high moral standard internationally.

Democratic Senators Ignore Constituents, Vote for Banks

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Don't Be Distracted: Torture and Flu Claim Their First Presidential Casualty‏

From Phil Gaskin, http://thepointsbeyond.blogspot.com/

Early last week I sent a message urging everyone to stay focused on the main goals of the President and to not get distracted by the side conversations like torture and now the flu.

What occurred last night is what happens when distraction to which President Obama has referred since the campaign occurs. Last night the Foreclosure Relief Bill was defeated in the Senate with 11 Democratic Senators voting against the Bill. The Banks bought out the Senators. The same banks that got money from the government. This defeat is a stinging blow to many Americans who are in need of help to avoid losing their homes. These include people with good intentions that have always paid on time and did not participate in irresponsible practices .

It is on Bills like this the Administration needs our voices and calls/emails to Congress, but this time the voices did not speak up. And due to the distractions exacerbated by mostly the far left including Olbermann, Maddow, Hartmann, Move On, etc. TV screens, email boxes and phone lines were filled with torture and flu conversations instead of things like this Foreclosure Bill. As I have said before torture punishments can and will be handled by the DOJ in due time as they should be. Regarding the flu, I think people are now seeing the overreaction and the distraction this was/is. The other pressing matters in the moment like the survival of American jobs and American's ability to keep their homes etc. are the key subjects on which we have to make sure we stay laser focused. Otherwise we are not working to support the agenda we want. We are not paying attention to Congress, and putting pressure on them to support the bills that help us, the American people.

Here is a list of the Democratic Senators that voted against the Bill. I am trying to get a list of the banks that fund these Senators. Please feel free to call their switchboards or email if so inclined. It is unconscionable that in the face or our crisis and with the bailout money gone to these banks that these Senators voted against this Bill.

The main number is 1-800-962-3524. Please be cordial to the wonderful switchboard operators, but let the Congress' staff know exactly how you feel.Those who voted for the banks:

Max Baucus, Montana: http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Michael Bennet, Colorado: http://bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=TransitionalSiteEmailSenatorBennet

Robert Byrd, West Virginia: http://byrd.senate.gov/

Tom Carper, Delaware: http://carper.senate.gov/index.cfm

Byron Dorgan, North Dakota: mailto:senator@dorgan.senate.gov

Tim Johnson, South Dakota: http://johnson.senate.gov/contact/

Mary Landrieu, Louisiana: http://landrieu.senate.gov/2009/index.cfm

Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas: http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Ben Nelson, Nebraska: http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Mark Pryor, Arkansas: http://pryor.senate.gov/contact/

Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania: http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

John Tester, Montana: http://tester.senate.gov/Contact/

The Role of the United Nations in the Post-Wall Street World

The global village is no longer some mythical economic universe. The domino effect that began with a mortgage crisis in the United States and spurred an historic worldwide economic recession is tangible economic proof that our village knows no boundaries. If the United Nations once existed with the dubious purpose to facilitate diplomacy, it exists today with a clear purpose to facilitate international economy. The role of the United Nations must rise in significance to oversee the building of an international economic infrastructure to deliver health, knowledge and security to the world.

There are those who will argue that the idea of an international governing body will impede the sovereign rights of individual nations. No doubt individual nations will have to make concessions; in the short run, the biggest concessions will be made by those nations that have the most to concede. The fundamentals of strong economy, be it local, state, national or global, suggest that the opportunity cost of waiting for another global economic meltdown necessitates that we make these concessions with urgency. Everybody wins with a universal workforce and consumption base that is healthy, educated, and secure.

As the argument persists in the United States for and against an affordable health care system that approaches “socialized health care,” there are little who doubt that the collective health of American citizens continue to diminish. Globally, the picture is even worse. In Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the rapid spread of HIV and AIDS continues to devastate development. Potential consumers and workers here whither in the forgotten shadows of the developed world. The developed world must wake up and smell the roses among these withering populations. A healthy global workforce is a happy and productive workforce.

If a healthy global population provides the base of a healthy economy, an infrastructure for education can make global health sustainable. Education can provide an infrastructure for preventative health care by instilling healthy mental and physical habits. Reading, writing, math, science, economics, and history should be a matter of course in the development of all societies; today, even in many developed nations, such basic pillars of a good education are absent. The slope of global progress continues to flatten.

Despair arises in the absence of knowledge and health. Terrorism grows in places cast indefinitely in the shadows of the developed world, where your best opportunity for health, knowledge and security may well be within the underground lairs of violent fringe movements. Think how easily we all have been culled into a fringe movement in the discontent of our youth before judging the choices of a young man whose existence is fraught with famine, disease, and violence. It is a desire for security in a chaotic world that drives these men to the fringe; violence goes without saying for those who have never known peace. The global opportunity cost for the existence of an unhealthy and uneducated “third world” population both creates and exacerbates the threat of terrorism; it is a global economic hindrance regardless of the security of your borders. Military action is a short term and sometimes shortsighted solution. Economic opportunity may sound more like a fantasy than a pragmatic solution; it is both.

Health, knowledge, and security are the interdependent pillars of our global economy long overdue for a strong global infrastructure. The United Nation’s purpose has never been clearer: to develop a borderless economic strategy that responds to an international economy that knows no borders.

On Torture: The Lib Said Con Said

I think there are few, if any whose last name is not Cheney or Rove, who argue that torture is a term that can be applied to some of the interrogation techniques utilized at Guantanamo Bay. There are certain overrriding themes that the details just can't muddle. And there are certain details that demand an answer; many are accountable but who is guilty?

However, there is a lot to be done to get America back on track and the lib said con said should not be the Administrations top priority. If an American law was broken it is up to the Justice Department to open an investigation. If an international law was broken, it is up to the United Nations to open an investigation and for the United States to comply with international law.

The investigation into the Cheney administration (operating under the alias Bush)'s use of torture will be blurry. The investigative process, however, is clear.

If President Obama chooses to micromanage an investigation with a clear process and a fairly predictable ending, he will do voters a grave disservice. He has bigger messes in the economy, the education system, and the health care system to clean up.

So in this justice push for terrorist, do not forgot about those whose justice could be threatened if President Obama himself spends too much time on the issue: the America people, jobless, broke, and broken.

Dear Miss California,

I had the fortune of tuning into the Miss USA pageant just in time to see the crowning. You of the megawatt smile and compassionate eyes instantly became my spot on favorite to take the crown despite your frightful evening gown; my roommate was all about the more understated Miss North Carolina. When I heard your interview the next day, however, I have never been so happy to be wrong. I wrongly judged the book by its cover.

But we do walk on some common ground, you and me, like: we were both brought up as Christians, we both have opinions, and (excuse me for being presumptuous) we both have assholes.

You do have one thing on me, though; you've got all your civil rights.Once upon a time, my pretty, some assholes had some pretty interesting opinions.

Some assholes held the opinion that girls weren't qualified to vote.

Some assholes held the opinion that people who weren't white were commodities best traded.

Some assholes held the opinion that Jews were a threat to humanity.

Today, some assholes hold the opinion that gays are a threat to marriage.

Many American lives have been lost in centuries long battles against White Supremacy; many American lives have been fought to uphold the fundamental idea that all men are created equal.

What you fail to understand and what you need to understand is that you became a hot, blonde spokesmodel for White Supremacy this past Sunday. Your job offer from Fox News is probably in the mail.

You didn't lose because of your opinion. You are not Miss USA today because America no longer stands for the idea that people aren't created equal. America rejects White Supremacy; and whether you are a White Supremacist or merely ignorant is besides the point.

In the Christian church that I grew up in, Pastor Simpson taught us that we should be compassionate and we should not judge others lest we be judged ourselves. We all have our Judgment Day and its up to God to decide whether we get into Heaven.

So let's let God do his job, and you do yours. You should realize that you are NOT Miss USA today, because you don't stand for the fundamental principle on which the United States was created: That All Are Created Equal!

To be clear, this is America and you are entitled to your opinion; fortunately America is entitled to reject your opinion. No offense...

Sincerely,
Dustin Newcombe
Your #1 Fan For Five Minutes
libsandcons.blogspot.com

When Exceptions Become The Rule

Republican Party leaders in Government and media almost uniformly align behind tea bagging parties to debunk the phantom of socialism and lobby for tax cuts to make the countries’ wealthiest wealthier. As they continues to solidify their “Party of No” reputation, I can’t help but wonder what they might be fighting for… They must stand for something more than just tax cuts extended to a minority of perfectly comfortable wealthy Americans, right?

If we go by the last eight years, it really looks like the Republicans may currently be fighting for unemployment, ,poor education, poor health care, and perhaps even World War III. You can call me crazy all you want. (Just don’t call me Rush Limbaugh.)

They are like a Party that has become irrationally ruled by exceptions instead of rules. They don’t just plan for contingencies and worst cases. They Govern and thereby create and expand the worst case.

Take terrorism, for example. According to Dictionary.com, terrorism is defined as:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

And terror is defined as:

1. Intense, overpowering fear. See Synonyms at fear.
2. One that instills intense fear: a rabid dog that became the terror of the neighborhood.
3. The ability to instill intense fear: the terror of jackboots pounding down the street.
4. Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.
5. Informal An annoying or intolerable pest: that little terror of a child.

Terrorism has always existed. Terror is predicated on one’s inability to predict the usually violent actions of another. After the unpredictable use of violence on 9/11/2001, for example, we emerged as a nation begot by terror. We were horrified and saddened by what we knew, but we were scared of what we didn’t know. (If President Bush deserves positive credit for one thing in his Presidency, it was with his firm, bipartisan response in the aftermath of these attacks.

Things went downhill fast.

The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is fundamentally terrorism. It formally tells the rest of the world that the United States reserves the right to engage in violence with another country without provocation. Internally this is pre-emptive; but externally this is terrorism. This does not necessitate or even imply that President Bush was, is, or ever will be evil. Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, for one, supports pre-emptive warfare in part because of her childhood exposure to terrorism and violence waged against her family and close friends by the Ku Klux Klan. Who can blame her, really? Alas, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.

Moms everywhere preach to their children the old cliche that two wrongs don’t make a right. I think maybe we should take this cliche a bit further to assert two wrongs don't just not make rights. They create larger, harder to contain wrongs. As far as terrorism is concerned, fighting it with more terror just creates an environment for expanding terror. The good intentions of terrorists occasionally help us understand and empathize with them, but they do not exempt or justify their actions.

Using exceptions as rules is a sad commentary on our times. I myself may have fallen victim to that certain cynicism that creates the environment for exceptions to become rules; there’s an obvious double standard apparent to me as I write. But I still believe most people are good even if they’ve done bad, that people are innocent until they’ve been proven guilty, and that exceptions and polemics have not become the rules. As long our culture continues to judge people by their worst game, the likelier we are to fall victims to exceptions like Al Queda or Sadaam Huessein, and miss out on rules like Ghandi or Kennedy and perhaps one day Obama.

From Ann Coulter's Dot Com: The Gentle Musings of an Anti Semetic White Supremacist (week of April 15)

I had no idea how important this week's nationwide anti-tax tea parties were until hearing liberals denounce them with such ferocity. Nice use of reverse psychology here. Reality the tea parties were a joke. People like Krugman denounced them for their fundamentally wrong historical perspective. But what can you expect from party leaders so creative they re-brand Neo Naxi as Neo Con and think nobody will catch on. The New York Times' Paul Krugman wrote a column attacking the tea parties, apologizing for making fun of "crazy people." It's OK, Paul, you're allowed to do that for the same reason Jews can make fun of Jews. ...Speaking of Neo Nazism.

On MSNBC, hosts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have been tittering over the similarity of the name "tea parties" to an obscure homosexual sexual practice known as "tea bagging." Again you're almost as hip as the Queen of England, but not quite. Tea bagging is more of a drunken frat thing. Homosexuals like myself call it what it is: "licking balls." Different. Night after night, they sneer at Republicans for being so stupid as to call their rallies "tea bagging."

Every host on Air America and every unbathed, basement-dwelling loser on the left wing blogosphere (vivid description of left wing bloggers here shows promise of a good writer) has spent the last week making jokes about tea bagging, a practice they show a surprising degree of familiarity with.

Except no one is calling the tea parties "tea bagging" -- except Olbermann and Maddow. Republicans call them "tea parties." Excellent point.

But if the Republicans were calling them "tea-bagging parties," the MSNBC hosts would have a fantastically hilarious segment for viewers in San Francisco and the West Village and not anyplace else in the rest of the country. On the other hand, they're not called "tea-bagging parties." (That, of course refers to the cocktail hour at Barney Frank's condo in Georgetown.)

You know what else would be hilarious? It would be hilarious if Hillary Clinton's name were "Ima Douche." Unfortunately, it's not. It was just a dream. Most people would wake up, realize it was just a dream and scrap the joke. Not MSNBC hosts.

The point of the tea parties is to note the fact that the Democrats' modus operandi is to lead voters to believe they are no more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, get elected and immediately raise taxes. Excuse Ms. Coulter, again, for being one of those unfortunate millionaires disgruntled at their tax hike; but hey even Ann might benefit in the end. After all, what would a Neo Nazi-Con Media Blogger be without a reason to cry wolf about taxes.

Apparently, the people who actually pay taxes consider this a bad idea.

Obama's biggest shortcoming is that he believes the things believed by all Democrats, which have had devastating consequences every time they are put into effect. (Again, Ms. Coulter must either have severe dementia or live in an alternate universe. Potaito, Potauto.) Among these is the Democrats' admiration for raising taxes on the productive. What country do you actually live in; or what alternate universe. You think CEO's of these failed companies are productive, or just fat. Go have intercourse with Rush Limbaugh and let's talk productivity.

All Democrats for the last 30 years have tried to stimulate the economy by giving "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes. Evidently, offering to expand welfare payments isn't a big vote-getter.

Even Bush had a "stimulus" bill that sent government checks to lots of people last year. Guess what happened? It didn't stimulate the economy. There is a difference here; Bush signed a lazy, wasteful stimulus bill while Obama signed a thoughtful stimulus bill that invests in the future. Obama's stimulus bill is the mother of all pork bills for friends of O and of Congressional Democrats. ("O" stands for Obama, not Oprah, but there's probably a lot of overlap.) I can't help but think this is somehow subtly racist; however, since I don't attend clandestine meatings of the Ku Klux Klan, then I can't be sure.

And all that government spending on the Democrats' constituents will be paid for by raising taxes on the productive.

Raise taxes and the productive will work less, adopt tax shelters, barter instead of sell, turn to an underground economy -- and the government will get less money. Apt description here, Ms. Coulter, of the culture of private enterprise. But big business already exists in an underground economy, they barter things like bonuses, corporate retreats, business lunches and dinners, and gifts.

The perfect bar bet with a liberal would be to wager that massive government deficits in the '80s were not caused by Reagan's tax cuts. (Are you scared that Reagan's dirty little secret might get out, since a tripling of the national defecit from 9 billion to 2.8 trillion dollars? Nice play.) If you casually mentioned that you thought Reagan's tax cuts brought in more revenue to the government -- which they did -- you could get odds in Hollywood and Manhattan. Ms. Coulter, you are occassionally a walking satire of conservatism. Sometimes you are that confusing. (This became a less attractive wager in New York this week after Gov. David Paterson announced his new plan to tax bar bets.)

The lie at the heart of liberals' mantra on taxes -- "tax increases only for the rich" -- is the ineluctable fact that unless taxes are raised across the board, the government won't get its money to fund layers and layers of useless government bureaucrats, none of whom can possibly be laid off. (Maybe if people got promotion and jobs during the Bush deregulation years, and weren't sliding roughshod into a depression, you'd have a point. Unfortunately we're not and you don't.) How much would you have to raise taxes before any of Obama's constituents noticed? They don't pay taxes, they engage in "tax-reduction" strategies, they work for the government, or they're too rich to care. (Or they have off-shore tax shelters, like George Soros.)

California tried the Obama soak-the-productive "stimulus" plan years ago and was hailed as the perfect exemplar of Democratic governance. (The Ms. Coulter creed: where history fails to support your argument write big words and cite fringe sources.)

In June 2002, the liberal American Prospect magazine called California a "laboratory" for Democratic policies, noting that "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control."

They said this, mind you, as if it were a good thing. In California, the article proclaimed, "the next new deal is in tryouts." As they say in show biz: "Thanks, we'll call you. Next!"

In just a few years, Democrats had turned California into a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $41 billion deficit, a credit rating that was slashed to junk-bond status and a middle class now located in Arizona.

Democrats governed California the way Democrats always govern. You're acting as if the California problem is an outlier phenomenon and not a function of the nationwide economic meltdown created by bankrupt private sector leadership and poor oversight by the Bush administration. They bought the votes of government workers with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries and benefits -- and then turned around and accused the productive class of "greed" (Ms. Coulter, I can't help but think you're acting to "re-brand" the wealthy as "the productive class." There is nothing wrong with being wealthy; its the disconnect between performance/productivitiy and compensation combined with excessive job loss that leaves the leaders of the private sector largely bankrupt. Remember it is not that people just "lose" they're jobs; executives cut their jobs) for wanting not to have their taxes raised through the roof. Having run out of things to tax, now the California legislature is considering a tax on taxes. Seriously. The only way out now for California is a tax on Botox and steroids. (Nice thinking here, Ms. Coulter. NOW you're on to something. You might throw ) Sure, the [Republican] governor will protest, but it is the best solution ...

California was, in fact, a laboratory of Democratic policies. This is not a fact, Ms. Coulter, this is the Rovian Neo Nazi-Con Media Corps' marketing machine rolling out more bullshit. The rabbit died, (in one of the two wars that Bush left on Obama's plate) so now Obama is trying it on a national level.

That's what the tea parties are about.

Once again, the train of thought here leaves me speechless, but not quite. Ms. Coulter's continues to waste her Ivy League education here; Ms. Coulter's gross productivity is one poorly researched essay a week.

Work Cited:
Article published on AnnCoulter.com, COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE 1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Crazy Cures for Common Corporate Catastrophes

Below is a list of no-brainer cures for the common corporate catastrophes. More detailed explanations of these three suggestions will follow later this week.

1) National Board of Directors: A national board of directors designed to oversee the activities of corporations headquartered (or with significant business conducted) in the United States with the goal ensure that major business decisions are made long term economicwell-being of the corporation, its related stakeholders (including shareholders, employees, and the public at large), the United States. The board is open to any individual with citizenship (sole or dual) in the United States who successfully completes a rigorous executive fitness program administered by the Brookings Institute.

2) Rotating Boards: The Boards of Directors of a corporation must be certified, much like accountants (CPA). While the Chairman of a Board can remain in place as long as the shareholders vote them into office, Board members must rotate. Each Board member must serve a specific role, such as: stakeholder responsiveness, shareholder responsiveness, responsiveness to the economy at large, etc. To ensure smooth transition periods, the rotations should not happen en masse; board member rotations should be staggered.

3) Make the incorporation process more detailed and rigorous. By incorporating, the public becomes accountable for the failed business. The goal of making the incorporating process more rigorous is to decrease the number of corporations to indirectly decrease the risk exposure of business failure to the public at large. This would have the added benefit of creating more opportunities for entrepreneurs and small business.

Libs and Cons Money Rebound List: Get Real and Get Connected

A list of sustainable resources to help you rebound from the bankrupt economy--

1. JobFox: Your job hunt connection at http://www.jobfox.com/
2. Geezeo: Your budget connection at http://www.geezeo.com/
3. Zecco: Your cheap online trading connection at http://www.zecco.com/
4. TradeMonster: Your other cheap online trading connection at http://www.trademonster.com/
5. Ripoff Report: Avoid the hustle at http://www.ripoffreport.com/default.html
6. Yaaze.com: Your job networking connection at http://www.yaaze.com/
7. Fax Zero: One free fax a day at http://faxzero.com/
8. Network For Good: Your good karma at http://www.networkforgood.org/

If ever you find yourself in dire straights, find THE LIGHT (Libs and Cons sidebar)--

1. Psychiatric Health Centers (Free-Low Cost)
2. Medical Health Centers (Free-Low Cost)
3. Food Stamps
4. United Way
5. Wal-Mart $4 Prescription
6. Free Medication Foundation
7. Free RX Drug Card