The Political Campaign Void: Fading from Fascist America!

I just have a hard time moving on. McCain has moved onto the wars that will last for the next 100 years, Clinton has moved onto answering the scary phone at 3:00AM on some distant morning, and Obama has moved onto hoping for a change. Personally I prefer the positive aspects of Obama's message, but even that seems to fall short. I would actually prefer that we step back and fix some things that have compromised us as a free nation, and I don't mean Bush's "freedom to the corporations." I mean Freedom of We the people...

I have not yet seen Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism, but I plan to. I agree with Russo in that we have to get back to truth telling, about what has happened to us, our country, and have some transparency about it. A wise man by the name of Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." As a people we are exactly getting what we asked for on that count. How do we lose the void in politics and begin our fade from Facist America?

1) Make illegal any fugure form of the Patriot Act that would allow the government to spy on Americans, give power of the president to declare persons "enemy combatants," and any engagement in search and seizures without a warrant.

2) Repeal the Military Commissions Act to restore habeas corpus, and include in future legislation that whether American or foreign, humans to which we claim to liberate with "freedom" deserve the right to a trial.

3) The outlawing of torture should be written into our Constitution, providing for standard questioning and trial by jury.

4) Repeal any claim by corporations to "rights" as a human under the US Constitution.

5) War profiteering should be illegal. For those who are a little slow--It should be illegal for corporations to make a profit during war time.

6) It should be illegal for a private company to hold contracts for voting machines and our voting system should be required to have a back-up paper trail.

7) Every US Citizen should be required by law to vote. If you benefit from Democracy, you should be required to participate in democracy. Laws should be passed making voting days during the work week and declared a national holiday.

8) Trade agreements should be repealed (NAFTA/CAFTA) and high taxes should be imposed on companies who move jobs overseas.

9) The Government of We the people should regulate and own those basic systems that maintain the welfare of every person, regardless of economic or social standing: public schools, preventative medicine, housing programs, and energy systems. All Americans should have the freedom to go with privately owned options, but not the freedom to pull government money into private ventures.

10) Governnment should only be allowed to intervene in private matters when those actions cause emotional or physical trauma to another, who is external to that persons physical body.

How do I become a citizen of that country?

McCain, Graham, Burr & Second Class Soldiers

John McCain (R-NA), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Richard "Dick" Burr (R-NC) Sounds painful--I know! Don't they look afraid? McCain with that stressed out look, Graham sporting the "Gomer," and Burr looks like he's badly in need of a transfusion or a good bite on someones neck. Would you trust these men to pass legislation at 3:00AM?

Well, John Soltz, a vet, at http://www.votevets.org/ has notified me that 16,000 Americans sent letters to their Senators rejecting their "GI Bill." Why? This legislation would:

1) create a flat education benefit, which does not account for the higher cost of state college tuitions where many of our veterans live. Soltz highlights that, "This would mean veterans in states where the cost of education is higher than the benefit would have to go into debt to get an education, or uproot themselves and their families to move to a place where the benefit would cover college."

2) essentially creates second-class veterans. This bill only benefits those military persons who have served 12 years. Anyone who has served less than that cannot transfer their education benefits to their children. Soltz tranlates for us, "This says to a veteran who serves for two years and loses both of his legs in combat that his service isn't as valuable as someone who has served for longer."

3) leaves out entirely those National Guard and Reserve personnel who have served their country in active combat right along-side their active duty brothers and sisters. Soltz says, "Under the McCain bill, over 160,000 members of the Guard and Reserves who have done more than one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan would get no credit towards an education for their additional sacrifice."

Well done McCain! Do you need some help getting those knives out of the backs of our military men and women? Help is on the way!

Enter Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) and Jim Webb (D-Virginia) who have responded to this injustice, in a bi-partisan effort to introduce the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act. Vets have written hundreds of op-ed's in support of this legislation and 30,000 Americans signed a petition that was hand delivered to the Senate this week. Nearly every Veterans organization supports this bill, as well as 57 Senators from the left and right. It is well known that McCain was asked to co-sponsor this bill, but declined to do so, opting for his offensive family-unfriendly version. So, what's so great about this bill?

1) The Webb-Hagel Bill raises each vetran allottment based on the highest tution in that state, allowing vets to come to their homes and keep their families in tact, rather than having to move away to go where cheap tutions would be costly, both in moving costs and much neede social supports.

2) There is no requirement for number of years served. You only have to be a vet.

3) This bill also ensures the coverage of those National Guardsmen and Reservists who served.

Can you think of a better way to support our troops? Don’t just sport a sticker or a lapel pin, contact your Senators (http://www.visi.com/juan/congress) and tell them to support the highest benefit for our troops--S. 22!

Want to do more?

CLICK HERE TO SEND A LETTER TO THE EDITOR ON THE GI BILL

Let's show the neo-cons what it really means to "Support Our Troops!"

How Would Jesus Torture? "Letters Give CIA [Torture] a Legal Rationale"

Image from Annoy.com

Yesterday, April 27 2008, a NYT article enlightened us with the Justice Department's announcement to Congress on the issue of "interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law. " What was the bottom line? Well of course, that they can be legally used if we arch our backs in just that extra special sexy way. Don't look at all those nasty enhancements...look here...No, no, over here!..watch my lower back, it's sexy isn't it?

So, here's the trecherous water-filled lungs...Ah, eh...I mean blood-stained,...ooops... I mean, "enhanced" trail laid before us: 1) Last summer Bush said that CIA operatives would comply with international law. 2) However, that is subject to a case-by-case hidey-hole of super-duper top secret rules on interrogation that can only be found up Cheney's ass and which seeks to circumvent the complications of the Geneva conventions that prohibit, "outrages upon personal dignity.”

Why is this so hard? Well, it seems that these words I just quoted hurt Bush's and the Justice Department's heads, so only they know dignity violations when they see it.

Deputy assistant Attorney General, Brian A. Benczkowski give us a little whif of the poo in this messy little disclosure letter, "The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act."

What does this all MEEEEEEEAAAAN? Reasonable Observer + Prevention of terror threat - the purpose of humiliation or abuse = WE CAN TORTURE YOU! Na-na-na na-nahhh-na! Using trick-fuck-inometry we can move the harmless words around so they say what we're saying without really saying it. Think fucked-up Algebra.

The article brings up waterboarding, which, to any nit-wit, is obviously utilized on a regular basis to obtain "intelligence." So, here's what we're gonna do before we decide if it should be used; Everyone this evening needs to tie themselves down, face up, have someone put a t-shirt over your head and then pour water over your face. You all then can come back here and tell me about your experience and answer the following quesions: 1) Does this REALLY simulate drowning? Come on now, be honest? 2) Can you breath while this is happening? Oh, common, you can breath a little--it's not THAT bad! Right? 3) Do you get water in your lungs? Wasn't there some study released in the last decade about someone actually being able to drown in a tablespoon of water? RIDICULOUS! I just can't wait to hear from you all! I'm so ENCITED!

One particular highlight was where the writer takes us down Elm Street...I MEAN, memory lane to remind us that in a 2002 memo Bush the limits of allowable techniques "just short of the pain associated with organ failure." I would just LOVE to see the machine they use to measure that in the moment. There are more mention of those things not allowed, but the specifics of what is allowed is again--super-duper top secret. More importantly, the Bush administration and it's group of "lawyers," (and I use this term loosely), are taking language in the Geneva Conventions as somehow vague or unclear, and so the practice of playing dumb gets more leeway than should be allowed by a scary clown. I can just see the hearings now. No one could have predicted the failure of their organs.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D), who sits on the Intelligence Committee expressed his concern of the Administration using the Geneva Convenation restrictions as if they were a "sliding scale." I love this analogy, Bush wants a sliding scale for torture, but not for taxes. Both are inevitable, but somhow he sees a distinction of importance when it comes to money, but not to a human soul.

So, in closing, I have to ask "the Bush," does this vague-arity put our troops at risk for others who may adopt the same standard? If we're really "spreading democracy" and "freedom" wouldn't it be reasonable that we would implement our legal system upon international dealings, rather than using "enhanced techniques?" Honestly, we know that "enhancement" doesn't work anyway. Those info-mercials are total scams! If he's such a Christ-ian, shouldn't he be implementing the golden rule to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."? Unless he's a kinky boy! You know those Skull & Bones boys! Even further, shouldn't he be praying for his enemies, giving them his coat, blessing them? Only if it involves spreading the freedom of the followers of Friedman and the Chicago School. I HAVE IT! Bush stood at the top of the temple in Jerusalem temple and said, "Satan, get in front of me." I think the closest he's gotten to the golden rule is following someone to a cross with nails, a hammer, a hard-on and something short of of the pain associated with organ failure.

To understand how Bush's push to torture fits into all of this you must read this book:

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

QP MUSIC RECOMMENDATION: THE BRAND NEW HEAVIES

Do you know who the BNH are?  Well, you should!  They're a funk-infused, nitty-gritty, dig-down-deep, groove-driven, for real BAND!  These boys and girl busted onto the music scene in the early 90's as the pioneers of what was called Rare Groove.  After a decade, N'Dea Davenport, the band's original lead diva is back where she belongs with the 2006 project release of Get Used To It.  Jan Kincaid is the spiritual leader on keys, vocals and drums, Simon Bartholomew licking a crazy guitar, and Andrew Levy kicking a hard bass.  The sound is unexpected, far reaching into the historic sounds of funk, jazz standards and disco, as well as those old soul-sounds of yester-year long before the industry machine shoved the likes of Amy Winehouse (amazing,- don't get me wrong) down our throats to control every aspect of the "branding."  At just the moment major labels pick up on BNH fever and try to control the sound, the band disappear themselves from the scene only to surface, as they did in the early 2000's, in places like Korea and UK only releases.  Their sound is music, for music's sake and there's no compromise with the sound, from acid jazz that beckons updated homages in "We Won't Stop," to funky switch-backs in "We Got," and electronic touched progressions in "Sex God" that hearken disco diva punch in the you-will-want-to-get-up-and-dance "Let's Do It Again."  The gem of the album is the seemingly fresh pressed 1950's vinyl sound of "I Don't Know Why (I Love You)." This group indulges in the past in all the right ways.  The band is tight, precise and in no way detracts from the ever intoxicating voice of Davenport.  You will never appreciate how amazing this band is until you get to hear them firsthand.  Definitely keep them on at the house parties.  I highly recommend them as the best band out there.

http://www.myspace.com/thebrandnewheavies

Gay Marriage: Constitution, Ethics & Hypocrisy

In 2004 Kenneth Cole utilized his power within the fashion industry to take on a problem. The problem is that 11 states included Marriage Amendements on the ballot that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The ad highlights that at that time 52% of Americans believed in the sacredness of marriage as just between a man and a woman, which is fascinating beyond the scope of what I have time for, but I’ll definitely cover the highlights. As long as I have been out, since the early 90’s, I have to say that I have found and still find the whole debate on Same-sex Marriage/Unions to be so illogical on so many levels, but let me address a few at length: one that is Constitutional, one that is ethical and one that is just plain hypocritical.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” After thousands of years of theocracies it would be foolish of me to say that marriage is not a state institution by history, but our present day context is very clearly contextualized by religious belief systems attempting to shove their unique beliefs down the throat of our Constitution. There is a concerted movement and admitted success by Christian theocratic citizens and lawmakers to legislate respecting an establishment of religion in our country concerning marriage, from their particular brand of religion. Supreme Court Justice Harry A Blackmun in the 1992 Lee v. Weisman case ruled, “When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some."

In 1802, January 1, then President, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote regarding separation of church and state, here abbreviated, "...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..." Why? Because of the very religious persecution that lead early Americans to flee England and the more recent example of persecution highlighted in the April 24, 2008 New York Times article on the persecution of protestant religions in Russia, which largely favors the Russian Orthodox church.

I take pause for a moment to address the procreation is what guarantees the future of the Republic bit. There is no population problem anywhere in the world so your future is solid, maybe not the people you want to populate, but it’s all good with 6 billion and growing. Moving on, individual religious systems are guaranteed the right to their own laws, norms and taboos within their own unique group, in order to establish and retain their own particular cultural and religious beliefs. However, those guarantees should stop at the synagogue, church, temple and mosque borders: no legislation going in and none going out. Their right is to establish and protect their own, but not to legislate those norms into the whole Republic, and let me be clear, this is what is happening right now. The First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees the preservation of religion and state, but once the wall of separation comes down there is an insidious slippery slope that threatens every unique group, of which everyone should be terrified, including individual religious sects. In essence, the fight of theocratic conservatives to insert moral doctrine into our Constitution devalues and essentially eradicates the religion of another. I know, some reading this may be thrilled with that prospect, and that is not surprise to me. I know that for some, as long as it’s your particular religion who has the power and control--you relish the idea of running out the other. But what if it is a rival religous sect who is unfriendly to you? OR, GASP! Musulims? Then where do you stand on the issue? The narrow road always prefers it’s own narrow world view, but a person who gets the idea of being a good human understands that the retention of diverse views strengthens the liberty of the whole.

On the ethical point behind the law, it’s really simple. If I stand within the grounds of my religious institution and say, “Straight marriage is not allowed on these hallowed grounds,” I’ve established a particular belief system. But then I hear that out there in the world or government straight marriage is being recognized; if I follow the line that is the political religious-conservative rational in America, I say wrongly, “My rights are being violated because someone else has the right to marry in the world or government--out there.” As a silo thinker I may believe that if I’m not able to discriminate against someone with which I morally disagree in the public forum then that means my religious freedoms are being violated? What?!!! That’s really nonsense of the highest order and no one should stand for such backwards thinking. The only way we impact each other is if we choose to attend each other’s ceremonies, or force ourselves into each other’s relationships, but that isn’t how it happens.

On April 16, 2007 MSNBC did a story on Lust, Love & Loyalty. Over 70,000 people completed this on-line survey and found that, “About one in five adults in monogamous relationships, or 22 percent, have cheated on their current partner. The rate is even higher among married men. And nearly half of people admit to being unfaithful at some point in their lives…” This would fall in line with the most recent sociological predictions if divorce rates continue at their current climb; that in all marriages, about 50% of all marriages will end in divorce, regardless of their religious or non-religious affiliation. Divorce statistics in general cover a wide diversity of alternatives that people find themselves in when things just don’t work out. When you take a hard look at who the theocrats are supporting and, in turn, carry the torch of “sacred marriage,” you find a litany of hypocrisy. Wasn’t it Bill O’Reily who sexually assaulted one of his female staff? Has not John McCain cheated on two of his wives? And then there’s the whole list of conservatives who upheld the high standard of marriage and abstinence only: Ted Haggard, Randal Tobias, Mark Foley, Larry Craig and other widespread hypocrisy. Honestly, how sacred can marriage be when this is the behavior? The hypocrisy is embedded in a practice of engaging in dishonesty that does harm to their partners, and even more, pushes hostile policy to work against people who desire the ability to live their lives with integrity, while engaging in the behavior they protest…but secretly. How is it possible that 52% of Americans truly believe in the sacredness of marriage given the evidence of behavior.

So here is my message to neo-religious conservatives: Grow up! Stop blaming others! Men and women in America need to take responsibility for their own marriages. No one makes you participate in the freedom afforded to every American, or makes your decisions for you, or makes you cheat, divorce or fight over money or sex, but you. As an adult you can expand or restrict that freedom as much as you want, for you. Straight America is responsible for it’s own relationships and problems. Spend your energy fighting real causes of your divorce rates and keep your religious laws to yourself, unless someone or a group actually does physical harm or persecution to your practices. If your stress is emotional, then avoid major cities where gays primarily live, don’t have a gay marriage, don’t go to a gay marriage ceremony, shut off your TV, don’t go to the mall, only shop at your religious affiliated stores, stay within your own communities, create your own communities and stay out of the world. I don’t go into your bedrooms or legislate into your places of worship because that is your space to believe and practice what you want, but outside of your grounds is public domain. I have full faith that you can be “in it, but not of it.”

Real human rights violations involve me telling you how to live or barring you from living your life, not barring you from telling me how to live. You are not ethically allowed to baby-sit America, so keep it out of our legislation. Keep it out of our Constitution; it’s not lawful or ethical. I’m an adult and so are you, so treat adults as you would have them treat you as an adult. If you don’t want me to bar you from marriage, don’t bar me. My personal solution is that there should be NO state sanctioned marriage. The state should only recognize those who want to be contractually bound by a union for the purposes of maintaining stability among families, in whatever shape or form that takes between two consenting adults. I can just hear the bestiality comments now! Come-ON PEOPLE! Those who go to that gutter thought terrify me, because it’s not even a rational thought. Time to leave the playground children, cover your ears. Brother Republican is losing the verbal conversation and has begun talking about sex with animals. Marriage, on the other hand, should be left up to private religious institutions within the laws and norms of their religion, particular to their religious freedom to practice as they wish.

This theocratic intrusion into our secular democracy is only one of many terrifying omens in which religious systems continue to persist into the public domain regarding marriage, Christmas, faith based initiatives, vouchers, government prayer breakfasts, official government meetings with the Pope, etc. How is this equitable on our tax dollars? Maintain a secular government in order to maintain our personal freedoms, human rights, the the diversity that resides within all religions and the freedom We the people and religions deserve—in that order.