We all love freedom and the Constitution. But is it really that simple?
I’m a huge fan of a good debate. And by “debate” I don’t mean the sort of ginned-up scream-lie-and-spinfests we have come to associate with the term in the past few decades. No, I mean spirited, intelligent, thoughtful exchanges between parties with honest, good-faith disagreements. Lucky me, I tripped across one today.
Honoring those who died in service doesn’t mean forgiving those who put them in harm’s way.
Today America honors its war dead, those who gave their lives in the service of freedom – not only ours, but in many cases they died to save innocent people in far-flung corners of the globe. This isn’t idle rhetoric, either. Ponder what the world might have been like had the Allies lost World War II.
The best way to honor our fallen heroes is to make sure there aren’t any more of them.
Today I honor our war dead, but I’m mad as hell that our leaders, corrupt and sociopathic as they so often are, have killed so many without cause. I’m enraged that some of these deaths are regarded by our society as less worthy of honor than others. And I’m livid with the certain knowledge that plans are afoot, even as we celebrate this holiday, to send more young men and women off to die in dishonorable, even criminal actions.
Perhaps we will keep this in mind as we enter election season, which will be rife with scoundrels wrapped in flags, scoundrels whose idea of honor and patriotism is sending other people’s children off to die in service to corrupt financial or bigoted religious agendas.
Way back in March of 2008, as the campaign was running in high gear, I made clear that while I wasn’t in love with the Democratic frontrunners, the emerging alternative was worse: John McCain represented the third Bush presidency. I … Continue reading Bush III: Obama’s deteriorating legacy
Today is Memorial Day, the annual holiday where we pay tribute to those who gave their lives in service to their country.
As always, not enough attention is focused on the men who made those ultimate sacrifices possible. for example:
William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, whose baldfaced liespropaganda brand of yellow journalism sucked the US into the Spanish-American War.
“Give ‘Em Hell” Harry Truman, who decided that the best way to contain China and/or the Soviets was to get involved in Korea.
John F. Kennedy, who reviewed the American experience in Korea and concluded that it worked so well we should take the same show on the road to Vietnam.
Lyndon Johnson, who inherited Kennedy’s unsuited deuce/seven and saw an opportunity to go all-in.
Bush the First, who realized te importance of protecting democracy in Kuwait.
Bush the Second and his minions Rumsfeld, Powell and Cheney, who cocked up whatever “evidence” was necessary to get our brave young future Memorial Day honorees into Iraq where they could put an end to all those WMDs and snuff out al Qaeda, which was in Pakistan, which is in Iraq.
Much has been said and written about Mr. Obama’s distressing record on civil liberties. Many have gone so far as to argue that he’s worse than his predecessor, that he has assumed powers that are strictly forbidden by the Constitution, that he has begun acting more like a king than a president. These critics have a mountain of objective data from which to draw in making their case.
Yesterday, on Facebook, one of my friends posted a graphic of the president and this recent quote, which is making the rounds:
I reject the idea that asking a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare…
And today, over at the Great Orange Satan, msblucow has an interesting poll up aimed at gauging how likely voters are to support Obama’s reelection bid in 2012. More to the point, why they are likely to vote for him (or not)? If you click through to the poll, there’s a series of questions that asks if the president’s actions on a series of issues make you more likely to vote for him, less likely, undecided, or do his actions and policies have no effect. Continue reading “Obama is talking the talk. Must be campaign season…”
There is a particular narrative about Ronald Reagan and the end of the Cold War that has always struck me as compelling. I bought the argument at the time and I think I still do, to some extent, even though I’m hardly a Reagan fan.
The story goes like this: Reagan was able to finally win the Cold War and drive a stake through the heart of the Evil Empire because he realized that the Soviet economy was already badly overextended trying to prop up the war machine. All he had to do was accelerate the arms race, dramatically increasing military spending (while also amping up the sabre-rattling rhetoric) and that would force the Russkis to bankrupt themselves trying to compete. Continue reading “The lesson that bin Laden learned from Reagan”
It seems that America now officially believes in torture as a primary tool of investigation. And back in 2008, I did a little story on how, believe it or not, we are using music as an implement of torture. So I suppose today’s challenge has a dark side, huh?
Some conservatives see all these fact-laden critiques of our various GOP manufactroversies (see Ryan, Paul) and wonder where are the Democratic plans to solve the financial crisis? (I have been asked this, quite vehemently, myself.)
The informed reply goes something like this:
The crisis isn’t real. It’s been fabricated by the neo-liberal politicians whose goal is to eliminate all taxes on rich people and bust structures like unions that afford the non-hyper-wealthy with some leverage in the American political economy. It. Isn’t. Real.