The NeoCons took a trillion dollars that could have gone to education, hospitals and roads, and restructured the economy to use the money to kill several hundred thousand people and destabilize global politics.
Gee, thanks, guys! That makes life so much better, safer, and more prosperous for us!
So... a trillion dollars... and there are 300 million Americans... every man, woman and child has given up $3,300 to personally contribute to an illegal war, with oil the target and Halliburton the clear winner.
No surprise in the election results. Why did it take Americans so long?
November 14, 2006
November 13, 2006
November 10, 2006
3-Step Withdrawal from Iraq
- Apologize for the unjustified invasion.
- Withdraw all troops, handing the keys of installations over to the United Nations.
- Instead of spending $200 billion a year on the illegal occupation, give the UN $200 billion a year for the next five years so they can police the place and start repairing everything you destroyed.
November 8, 2006
Chimps defeated, Bonobos elected
Tired of 6 years of Chimpanzees running around, screaming and displaying and threatening, US voters on Tuesday sent an increased contingent of Bonobos to Washington. Bonobos, who look a little more human than Chimps, create a more egalitarian society typified by female group dominance, food sharing, and endless sexual activity.
Republican frat boys and Democrat moms
For the last six years the Republican frat boys have been bouncing on the furniture, knocking paint cans over, raiding the fridge and setting fire to the cat. Now the Democrat moms are starting to show up, clapping their hands to get attention: "Stop that right now! Start cleaning this mess up!" (And there are more of them on the way...)
November 6, 2006
Americans vs. Canadians
The big reasons for the differences between American and Canadian society are:
- Apart from the common Native populations and British imperialism, Americans were influenced by Spanish imperialism ("Enslave 'em, take the gold") while Canadians got the French version ("Trade with 'em, marry 'em").
- Every time Americans start a war (or civil war, or rebellion against the Crown), peace-loving Americans move north; every time there's an economic recession, money-hungry Canadians move south. Over 250 years that makes a difference.
November 3, 2006
The Laughable US Constitution - separation of powers
The idea is fine - to prevent a dictatorship by separating power into different areas, and by having a system of checks and balances.
Where it should be done: separation of Head of State from Head of Government. The former is a ceremonial and symbolic, like a respected but powerless Monarch, the latter is political and transitory, like a Prime Minister. By combining the two roles in one person, that person can stifle criticism of their poor government record by accusing critics of unpatriotically attacking the Country Itself.
Where it should not be done: separation of legislature from executive. These functions are essentially the same, and the people should have the right to elect a government which will can be seen to act effectively, without each side playing a blame game of deliberate confusion. Otherwise, ineffective government (but not small government) is one result. Lack of accountability is another. Corruption is another. Voter alienation and apathy is yet another.
Where it should be done: taking the Supreme Court away from both legislature and executive, and leaving the appointment of Justices in the hands of the legal profession. "Separation of powers" is a joke if politicians are going to appoint Justices on party lines, and Justices are then going to appoint the President on party lines!
Where it should not be done: bicameral legislatures. Two legislatures of equal weight leads to gridlock, confusion, lack of accountability, voter alienation, etc. One legislature strong because elected, the other weak because appointed, is no solution either, but leads to corruption and legislative review by rich status-seekers who have bought their office.
But money politics is another topic.
Where it should be done: separation of Head of State from Head of Government. The former is a ceremonial and symbolic, like a respected but powerless Monarch, the latter is political and transitory, like a Prime Minister. By combining the two roles in one person, that person can stifle criticism of their poor government record by accusing critics of unpatriotically attacking the Country Itself.
Where it should not be done: separation of legislature from executive. These functions are essentially the same, and the people should have the right to elect a government which will can be seen to act effectively, without each side playing a blame game of deliberate confusion. Otherwise, ineffective government (but not small government) is one result. Lack of accountability is another. Corruption is another. Voter alienation and apathy is yet another.
Where it should be done: taking the Supreme Court away from both legislature and executive, and leaving the appointment of Justices in the hands of the legal profession. "Separation of powers" is a joke if politicians are going to appoint Justices on party lines, and Justices are then going to appoint the President on party lines!
Where it should not be done: bicameral legislatures. Two legislatures of equal weight leads to gridlock, confusion, lack of accountability, voter alienation, etc. One legislature strong because elected, the other weak because appointed, is no solution either, but leads to corruption and legislative review by rich status-seekers who have bought their office.
But money politics is another topic.
November 2, 2006
The Laughable US Constitution - political parties
The problems with the Constitution of the United States are massive and fundamental, and ripple out through all aspects of life here.
The essential problem is not that it is a horse-and-buggy document still being used in a cyber age (though that is bad enough); no, the real problem is that its authors believed they could structure politics in the US in such a way as to prevent the rise of political parties! Everything is built on that, and on the assumption that political votes and appointments would be made by reasonable people acting in a disinterested way for the good of the nation.
As if!
What the Founding Fathers would have thought of a Supreme Court constituted of party political appointees, voting on a party line vote as to who should be the President of the United States and subverting the clear will of the people in the process... Well, if that possibility had been seen by them, they would have written a very different document.
The essential problem is not that it is a horse-and-buggy document still being used in a cyber age (though that is bad enough); no, the real problem is that its authors believed they could structure politics in the US in such a way as to prevent the rise of political parties! Everything is built on that, and on the assumption that political votes and appointments would be made by reasonable people acting in a disinterested way for the good of the nation.
As if!
What the Founding Fathers would have thought of a Supreme Court constituted of party political appointees, voting on a party line vote as to who should be the President of the United States and subverting the clear will of the people in the process... Well, if that possibility had been seen by them, they would have written a very different document.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
