Thursday, May 04, 2006

Borrowed from

Nothing else to say. Ain't it obvious?

Hey Foggy. I think you may get some flack around here with that Commie rhetoric. I seen the and they are biting and sarcastic. Their wit is only equalled by their audacity and their lean towards the socialista.

Personally, I love it. I have no political ties. It's a pimp's game and I slam everyone, right or left or in-between. I'm always reminded of the place where Jesus says that he'd spit out the luke-warm because it ain't hot or cold.

Politics is good fun and would be laughably hillarious if it weren't so damnably serious.

Stand by our flag.
OK, the cartoon is funny. I laughed.

But I must say there are so many lies continually propagated about this president, either intentionally or unintentionally. Many of those lies are "reasoned" simply by deep-seated feelings, beliefs or attitudes. It's like one of my black friends who recently bristled at my mentioning of Elvis Presley, because she believes in the horrible rumor that Elvis uttered a racist comment back in the 1950s, even though and others have utterly demolished this urban legend.

Now allow me to demolish one of those myths about President Bush:

"Tax giveaways to the rich."

Here are the facts:

I quote from Stephen Moore, a member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, writing in today's Journal:

"New IRS data released last month (show that) [i]n the aftermath of the Bush investment tax cuts, the federal income tax burden has substantially shifted onto the backs of the wealthy. Between 2002 and 2004, tax payments by those with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of more than $200,000 a year, which is roughly 3% of taxpayers, increased by 19.4% -- more than double the 9.3% increase for all other taxpayers.

"Between 2001 and 2004 (the most recent data), the percentage of federal income taxes paid by those with $200,000 incomes and above had risen to 46.6% from 40.5%. In other words, out of every 100 Americans, the wealthiest three are now paying close to the same amount in taxes as the other 97 combined. The richest income group pays a larger share of the tax burden than at anytime in the last 30 years with the exception of the late 1990s -- right before the artificially inflated high tech bubble burst."

Back on the topic at hand -- gas prices -- let's face it: The global oil market is beyond the control of one man. There is a surge in demand for oil, and it's not by Americans. Meanwhile, Americans, who cherish their liberty, have chosen to over-consume SUVs and other gas suckers, so they have only themselves to blame. This will be corrected as consumer behavioral shifts to more economical modes of travel, such as hybrid cars.
You're right. We have only ourselves to blame. But it really doesn't have to do with liberty, it has to do with greed. The rest of the world is starting to come into the gas consumption age and Americans are pissed. Funny how we, at around 280 million people (out of over 5 billion), consume around 80% of the oil. It's not about liberty. It's about greed. Don't cut into our usage, even if the oil supply comes from your piss-poor third world hovel. It's ours because we need it. Fuck you. We have bigger cars and SUV's and we have the big guns and we'll blow your sorry ass off the face of God's green earth if you try and stop me from tanking up my Hummer.

As far as the one man thing goes, you are absolutely correct. The global oil market is not controlled by one man. But I have to ask this. When you lay with the dogs, don't people assume you're one of them?

It's not just Bush, though he is the most visible. As our president, he is a representation of us. Then too, what of the oil companies he and family do business with? What of business and family alliances with Saudi and other Middle-eastern oil producers? When administration spokespeople say that the war isn't about oil, how can anyone ignore the resounding echo of "bullshit"? Of course it's about oil. Denying it is avoidance of facts.

The blame on GW is unfair. It lays in all our laps. He's just a focal point. As long as we thoughtlessly suck up finite resources and then try and pawn it off as the fault of the producer, we miss the point. Think how fast oil prices would drop if people would start giving up their addiction to the black gold? The Texas Tea?
Sorry, Len. The war is not about oil. Respectfully I say to you: That's such an easy, naive reason. I hear it so much from people -- and I do not put you in this category of thinkers -- who simply hate the president and his ideals but are unable to articulate precise reasons why they hate him so much, so they fall upon the old refrain "it's about oil, it's about oil" because the president was an oil man, and "he has friends" (another unreasoning, tiresome refrain), and the whole concept really doesn't require too much heavy lifting in the cerebral cortex.

All you have to do is go back to September 11 and remember your outrage as an American that this (expletive deleted) Middle Eastern rooted terrorism had spread its ugly pallor into our nation, changing us forever as most have agreed. Bob Schieffer of the liberal CBS Evening News on that day said, and I paraphrase: This event has inoculated Americans against the spectre of bodybags. And so it has: President Bush himself said after winning his second election that he would spend all his political capital on this struggle.

Meanwhile, Saddam blustered and bragged that he had WMD and denied access to UN inspectors, and the intelligence consensus was that he had WMD, and in fact the March 2003 invasion did stop Saddam's rocketry program, which was nearing completion. The rocketry program is considered the "long tent pole" of a WMD program. There's no point in developing WMD if you don't have a delivery method; the recipes for chemical and biological munitions were already mastered by Iraq's scientists: those warheads require about two weeks to cook up. But rockets weren't a sexy story for the mainstream press; they wanted a smoking gun, a cache of WMD.

But, really, the WMD is just one component of a much larger issue: international security. We were attacked. Kuwait was attacked. Saddam's lifelong ambition was a pan-Arab state and the "incineration" of Israel.

With our national security on the front burner, the Bush administration strategy followed an age old wisdom: The best defense is a good offense. We did not hunker down and allow the Middle East to continue festering. We stepped outside of our house and went on patrol in the neighborhood where this evil was brewing.

If you visit the Israel Defense Forces' website, and study its doctrine, you will see one of the main tenets is "Transferring the battle to enemy's territory quickly."

Israel is to date the lone stable democracy in that region.

So transferring the battle is precisely what America has done. It is much better for us to fight al-Qaida over there than on our soil. No attacks here in 5 years. Why? The jihadists are on the run. Let them defend their region while we plant some churches and other open-minded ideas for a change. And we are forming some very dear friends in the Iraqi security forces' cadre, friends who one day could serve on difficult human-intelligence missions.

Thousands of decent Iraqis have given their blood for the ideal of democracy. Shame on the armchair doubters in America and elsewhere.

It really ticks me off when people say, 'Oh those people just aren't democratic by nature.' Nonsense. That is so condescending. So hopeless. So gloom-and-doom. So defeatist.

Abraham Lincoln may just as well have given up on emancipation for the slaves. Oh but that's not what the war was really about, was it? Naw. It was about oil.

And, speaking of Abe, real leadership is not about popularity. It's about leadership. It's about having the guts to do what's right, even when a lot of people are sneering at you and calling you an asshole.
No, it's not all about oil. But to suggest that oil doesn't play a major role in these dealings is pretty easy and naive too. It's about greed, plain and simple. Our greed and their greed.

The dealings we've had and situations we've had to fight are petro-related. Saudi money runs the freaking world. The House of Saud owns Citibank. What does that include? more and more America every day.

To suggest that wars are not economically motivated is short sighted. You alluded to Israel as Democratic. True. Guess what else? No oil. Lebanon, the peaceful neighbor of Israel. Coincidence? No Oil. Petro dollars fuel more than the terror. It's a means of political control. To think that things over there are motivated solely by philosophy is ignoring the reality.

Just like here. Freedom and Liberty and Democracy are all swell ideals, but to ignore the reality that many in the world hate Americans because of the way American business interests have done their share of exploiting them. And remember, the business of government is business. Idealism is a facade, altruistic reasoning cloaking gritty truths.

I'm a cynic. I have as much faith in ideology as I have in economic systems. I once thought myself idealistically liberal, but the nice guy attitude doesn't hold up well enough to make it reasonable. Conservative by definition is adherence to the status quo. Sorry. Can't do that either.

I don't know that it's a requirement to have to follow any philosophical tenets to be a citizen here. I want none. As I've said numerous times, I see politics as a pimp's game, a dog and pony show, a huge Ponzi scheme with life and death being the payout.

Where are the economic motivations of the several wars that Israel has fought since her re-founding in 1948?

There are none.

Sovereign nations have a right to defend.

Japan attacked us in 1941, because they perceived we were suffocating them by policies that restricted their oil supply. But the bigger picture is that the Japanese empire was on a rampage in China and all of Southeast Asia. We did right to quash that bid.

Politics is a life-and-death game. You've got your despots and tyrants (Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam, just to name a few in one corner of the spectrum of players); then you've got Leaders who accept the mantle that God has laid upon their shoulders at critical junctures in history (Lincoln who morally would not compromise on slavery, Reagan who rolled back communism, and so many others).

Some people choose not to get involved in politics. We become too rigid, listen to street talk ("it's about oil") and rumors and set up mental bogey men to justify our fantasy puritanical qualifications for office.

A vote not cast is still a decision. Such players have relegated themselves to the background, to the silhouette, to the anvil.

We can decide to be involved in the world, or we can withdraw. And the world moves on without us.

As my boyhood preacher often said: "Are you part of the problem or the solution?"
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?