Go here for new and improved site in progress.
Attention dear readers, don't use my bigbingtheory@earthlink.net email address. Instead switch to itsbing@gmail.com
9/11 5 years after and how Bush has failed as a leader.
After 9/11/2001 the world was united behind us and we stood behind our president. Never mind that he was selected by the Supreme Court or that he didn't get a majority of votes. The point was the country was bitterly divided and came together. I doubt very seriously the loyalists to this president would have shown the same respect for Clinton. The events of 9/11 did not mean we stopped being vigilant in our duty as citizens to question the policies of our leader however. The world's good will began to evaporate as Bush began pushing for an invasion of Iraq. Many in the intelligence community disagreed with the president but their criticism went un heeded for more dubious claims aimed at getting public support. We began to learn at this time that Mr. Bush was warned repeatedly about the threat Osama bin Laden posed and did absolutely nothing. We began to question the wisdom in attacking another country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Many of us knew the president was twisting the truth. Here we are in 2005 and the mission is far from accomplished. A new 9/11 commission report has proved our suspicions were correct, we were being lied to. A few weeks ago the British thwarted a terrorist plot using good old fashioned police work. Something Republicans belittle. That didn't stop them from claiming a victory for Bush. The very method John Kerry said would be most effective to thwart terror, law enforcement and intelligence, was twisted by Bush as being representative of his policies working. The opposite is true. Bush's methods of preemptive war, torture, and indefinite imprisonment have emboldened terrorist, inflamed them and the Middle East is now a far more dangerous and ant-American place because of these policies. Mr. Bush has squandered good will that could have, if used properly, destroyed terrorist networks and made us safer. We are not. The difference between the loyalists and the dissenters is that we are not willing to live in fear of another terrorist attack. It may happen and probably will if Bush continues to let the borders remain porous and shipping containers unchecked. I'll not let someone who got us in this mess (Bush) cow me into thinking that I need to have my phone and internet tracked without a warrant to keep me safe. I'm not so afraid that I'd get in line for a national ID card. I won't give up my civil liberties without a fight. There is no proof what so ever that Bush's un-American and unConstitutional policies have kept us safe from another terror attack, none. Some people forgot their civic duty and continue to blindly follow the president. They must be so terrified, I'm sure our enemies take comfort in that. For you have to be pretty scared to just hand over freedom to someone who's proved himself as un-trustworthy in hopes that he can protect us. Bush has been proven as a liar. From the cost of his Medicaire program, to the links of Saddam to al Qaeda. He told us that no one could have foreseen the breech of the levees in New Orleans though he was told only days before. I think at this point, 5 years after, less safe, and less respected in the world we can not afford to bow to the president and give him the benefit of the doubt. He squandered that a long time ago.
Email exchange between me and local radio talk show host, Mike Rosen who thinks comparing bestiality to homosexuality is ok.
Thank you for exposing yourself. It's refreshing to know exactly where one comes form. In
this great country we are able to hold any opinion we wish. It's not a
right that can be taken lightly or for granted. So I was impressed that you
so boldly professed two core issues regarding your defense of Janet
Rowland's remarks about "homo-bestiality" First you believe the law is
for morality. Tell me when we've ever succesfully legislated morality
and it didn't wind up being un-Constitutional because it infringed on
someone else's liberties. I challenge you sir because I obviously
disagree with you. Law is for the preservation of liberty. The careful
weighing of individual and social liberty. The Constitution of these
United States doesn't profess morality, except maybe during
prohibition. Which as you know was over turned. Secondly you defend
Janet's comments by claiming there is a link between deviant sexual
behavior such as incest to homosexuality. This leads me to believe you
think homosexuality is a choice, like those deviant behaviors you
mentioned. Sadly I don't agree with you there either. But I know where
you stand and that's important.
I am not homosexual, but have had friendships with many who have
lived painful conflicted lives and don't see how your's is a logical
conclusion. To me it's more of an excuse you use. It's not rooted in
fact or observation, rather a hatred, repulsion or religous reason is
usually used to justify your attitude towards those who happen to be
born gay. This saddens me too because it's short sighted to be so
confident you know that homosexuality is so wrong for what ever reason
and that is a form of bigotry. It may be unPC and that is in vogue now, but
you are making some comments which you believe to be true, and you say
things with such conviction, but ultimately demonize and demean a group of people because
you can't, or won't understand them. That's counter to the spirit of
the Constitution. If you want to be bigoted it is your right, but it is
not your right when it becomes political. The speech you and she make
are harmful to the community and do more damage to the fabric of
society than the so called deviant behavior you abhor so much.
No sir, the law is not for morality it's for liberty. That is the
only way liberty can be preserved. And frankly I don't care for your
morals,
Bing VanGorden
Dennis Kucinich speech
Don't let anyone tell you Democrats don't have passion or vision. Please listen.
WTF?
Police work thwarted an alleged terrorist plot in England. Not bombs, but police work. Police work also uncovered 2 people in Ohio who have allegedly laundered money for terrorist purposes including the purchase of 600 phones. Bombs did not weed these people out. Bombs dropped elsewhere may have encouraged them to do something stupid and horrible like kill people in the name of Allah. I say "alleged" because I believe in the process of law and with the knowledge that facts usually take time to truly be exposed. I stress "bombs" because I don't like killing, it's wrong. I point out the police work because that is what thwarts terrorists. Not bombs. They create more of them. Did you know that our government was able to speed bombs to Israel but reluctant to rescue it's own citizens from Lebanon, where the bombs were to be used? Our priorities have become violence first, people second, peace never. How can they say they are of a "culture of life" when they kill so readily and show no compassion?
What the hell is wrong with them?
How can the right wing extremists in this country be so in love with war? How can these "Christians" and "compassionate conservatives" not care about suffering in the least? Unless it's their suffering of course. How can you say a death toll is "just a number" whether it's our soldiers or not? How can sane people think that killing civilians is ok or justified under any circumstances? How can they claim to value life? How can these people hate liberals, or any dissenters at all for that matter, more than they people who truly do mean to do us harm? How does one degrade their own humanity to condone torture? How do they stay so angry at us, the peace makers? How can you have a conscience when you belittle and slander a grieving mother? How does one justify all the killing? How could they stoop so low as to surrender their civic duty to question the government and worse, throw vile insults towards those who do? What makes a person blindly follow someone who can't be trusted with a bag of pretzels let alone our nation's best interest? Why do they hate science so much but have unyielding trust and love for the "free market?" Why do they have to lie so much to defend their beliefs? How does one support the troops by desiring perpetual war? Why aren't they upset about the massive federal debt, or war profiteering? How dare they call me a traitor?
Because they haven't had to face any of these things head on. They don't feel until it effects them directly. They are convinced they are right and unable to hear what they don't want to or face what is unpleasant but true. Because they drank the kool aid and some even believe Bush was appointed by God and the end times is near. And because they are cowards.
Critics
Answering some who are critical of Israel's critics. A quick glance across opinion pages of news papers around the country and you're sure to see someone perplexed by liberals and progressives complaining about Israeli aggression. The same people were perplexed by liberals outrage and criticism at our own governments practices of torture, or liberals condemnation of some of the things our military is being asked to do. They ask why are progressives upset with American and Israeli policies and not angry at the terrorist organizations who also use devious and violent tactics to achieve their aims. Two things come to mind to this liberal. One, it's a a false assumption that condemning one thing is an acceptance of others. Just because progressives have been vocal about Israel using violence does not mean they condone the actions of Hezbolah. This leads me to the second point. We assume that Hezbolah and al Qaeda, and other Muslim extremists use despicable tactics, we expect more from our own government and Israel. The Michael Savage's of the world will have you watch the horrifying footage of the beheadings of prisoners at the hands of Iraq's al Qaeda to show you they should be given no mercy. That any violent action is justified because these people are barbaric. That's a weak minded approach. A knee jerk reaction that only begets more violence. Anyone who points out that we as Americans are to be held to a higher standard than our enemies are quickly accused of being sympathetic to them. Right wing pundits will demonize any one who suggests that our torture policies are counter productive. They make leaps in conclusions assuming they can make these ridiculous connections between one thing and another. If you're critical of how Bush is running the war, you hate America and feel sympathy for those who would destroy us. If you encourage steps towards peace versus violence you don't support the troops. If you criticize Israel you must think it's OK for Hezbolah to kill people. The truth is simple. We expect Hezbolah to attack innocent civilians and torture their captives. Complaining about them is pointless as everyone can agree they are mad. We expect our military to use restraint and act in a more humane way than our enemies do. Why would conservatives who claim to love their country set such low standards for her?
Left is right.
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador the leftist candidate for President of Mexico is being denied a recount of votes probably costing him the election. He won't be the only loser. Every US citizen concerned with illegal immigration from Mexico will have lost. The Mexican people will have lost. How ironic that the free market, anti tax zealots here in this country can't see that only progressive politics can stop the flow of illegals across our Southern border. Immigration from Mexico is usually one of self preservation. Poverty is rampant and the Government does nothing. Unemployment is up and wages are low. People don't just come here for a better opportunity, they come to escape their life. We talk about minute men and walls being built to keep our borders more secure. We send the National Guard to help with border security indirectly but we fail to recognize the obvious source of the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico. A flaw with conservative logic is lack of foresight and objectivity in problem solving. A wall and troops will not keep people from fleeing Mexico. The humane and prudent thing to do would be to recognize the citizen's of Mexico suffering. What can we do, what is in our power as Americans to influence Mexico's government take care of it's people? We solve this, we solve illegal immigration by solving a humanitarian crisis.
I'm back!
I tried briefly to post on a right wing blog. Ms.Underestimated.com. I'm a sucker for a good pun and heck I want to change some of the misconceptions heaped upon liberals and Democrats in general by the right wing talking heads like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. etc. etc. Of course a lot of her posts were about people like Laura Ingram, as smug and vitriolic and as fake as they come. She sat in for O'Reilly, I pity the chair on the set. At least 2 asses are on it all the time. ;^} But I don't want to talk about the content so much as the politeness of the host Ms.U. She tried in vain to get her filter to let my posts through to her blog. And she released them as soon as she found out they weren't getting on. Apparently my internet virtual alter ego, bigbingtheory has been blacklisted! It's true. I mentioned I had been pushed out the door of Media Matters for America in a previous post. I had been a little too graphic in my criticism of some of the righties who'd pop in to regurgitate something he/she heard on Fox News that was totally false. If you bother checking their version of the "facts" that is. If you're gullible you swallow the GOP line and disinformation thugs like David Horowitz. Anywho, and that's good enough for some and they stop thinking. And they call us gullible. One poster suggested I read more in as post full of said innaccuracies. If thugs seems to strong a word I only use it because it's what I observed while trying to blog with the other side. I began reading the posts and couldn't believe some of things people were saying about liberals. The hate they have for us rivals only the hate they have for the "islamo-fascists." A term that doesn't make sense because fascism is the combination of the state being in bed with the big business. How about Christo-fascists in this country? I know that comment would set them off. Ironically they have no problem labeling things but they feel they are above reproach. But let's face it. The people we hear chanting war war war tout themselves as conservative christians with good family values. They call us immoral, in some cases, Sean Hannity just compared us, the peace makers, to the rise of the Nazi party. Excuse me? Just like them to call us what they resemble most. Here's a quote from Joseph Goebbles that describes the right wing media,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
continued...
I am what I am and I cant takes no more
There are many on the right, critical of the left because they believe they lack support for the troops. I can speculate as to why the right feels that way. They mistake the left's desire to make war as a last resort as being weak. They mistake the left's criticism of how our military is being used as being un-supportive of the troops. The confuse the left's outrage at the President as being un-patriotic.
Assuming my speculation as to how the right perceives left is correct, I'd like to correct them.
Firstly, I don't know any liberal pundit, or friend of mine, who does not support the troops. We recognize the sacrifice and we want our troops to be armed properly, used as a last resort, and come home as quickly as possible. We don't like that they have been put in an untenable position, over deployed, not trained for what they are being asked to do. Our criticism has been regarding the misuse of our troops, not at the troops. Our criticism is leveled at the people who are calling the shots like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. Criticism that is warranted because there is ample evidence those people ignored the counsel and advice that had they heeded we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. Some on the right perceive this criticism as whining or being unpatriotic. Let me nip that in the bud. It is impossible to be simultaneously outraged at the leadership of this country and be unpatriotic or whining. I guarantee you, we're pissed. We're pissed that our troops are being misused and abused by people who have never served in combat for what appears to be for motives more political than patriotic. We're pissed that the President lied to us, or mislead us if you prefer, into the war in Iraq. A war that has accomplished what many that had predicted but were ignored. It has opened the gates of hell. It has made us more vulnerable, lessened our ability to engage in countries that harbor terrorists and has done more to create terrorists than to destroy them. In short, the war in Iraq has not made us more safe as promised. Has not decreased terrorism world wide as promised, has not lessened the price of oil as promised, and has not brought us peace or democracy in the middle east as promised. To the contrary. The price of oil has never been higher, terrorism has surged world wide and countries like Iran who were leaning towards the West have regressed back into electing hard liners who call for the destruction of Israel.
I charge it is those with blind allegiance to the policy makers who put our men and women in harms way needlessly are the ones who do not support the troops. The ones who would prefer to create more terrorists by condoning the killing of innocent civilians do not have our countries best interests at heart. The ones who justify torture, revenge, and pre-emptive strikes are not morally superior to those they disagree with. While the right wing talking heads pound their shoes on the table while sitting in a nice air conditioned studio ranting about those they disagree with as being traitors and worse than terrorists, the world is becoming a more dangerous place. And of course they blame that on us, the left.
Whatever
Youch, what's a politically motivated liberal blogger to do when he gets the boot from Media Matters for America? Apparently I was a bit too rude to the trolls who'd pop into the message boards and regurgitate Rush Limbaugh type talking points. Shame too, because I had started being very good about it and not trying to be combative or rude. But one day I went to post something and they told me I was banned. No explanation other than I violated their incredibly generic rules about not personally insult people. So the righties got this lefty kicked off a lefty blog. Just as well I suppose as I have enough to occupy my time as it is. I have an itch to communicate though, it can't be scratched at work. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Bush loyalist there. Those unfortunate souls I think are lost forever. The 23 % who'll follow Bush over a cliff, their lights are on but nobody's home. So I reached out and found a blog by a Ms.underestimated that comes from a right leaning perspective. The 23 % solution so to speak. It seamed the least combative of the few I'd stumbled upon so I thought I'd contribute a thing or two. Though I refrained from personal attacks or name calling the divine Ms.U would not have it. She commented to my posts but when I tried to post again I was told I was blocked by a filter. Wow. Reason isn't what they want. They want irrational hate speech and dubious GOP talking points. We're the boogeyman, not Osama or any other terrorist leader but the "other side." God forbid we have a civil discussion. God forbid you disagree with them. I asked her in an email if there was anything she disagreed with that she was tolerant of. I hope that sinks in, but I doubt it. Some people are just convinced they have it all figured out and anything that contradicts that isn't worth knowing. Oh well. I'll keep plugging along.
It's the Compassion Stupid
I have a solution for the problem of war. Everywhere. It's so simple it'll never happen but I got to tell you about it regardless. Massive humanitarian efforts around the world. Wherever war breaks out there is abject poverty. People have needs. Imagine how difficult a time al Qaeda, hezbollah, hamas and other terrorist organizations would have for safe haven and recruitment if we invaded their host countries with international humanitarian missions. Backing them up with a well equipped and trained UN force. This idea, treasonous to some, plain crazy to others, and perhaps naive to many, is precipitated by current events in the Middle East. Actually it's an idea that has been with me for as long as I can remember. I understand there are people out there who hate us and no matter what we do they will continue to. But our current foreign policy kills some of them, others begin to hate us. The more bombs that are dropped on our enemies the more terrorists we create. Violence begets violence. Peace will beget peace. Our practically unilateral approach to Iraq for example. We swept into Bagdad in record time and were indeed welcomed as liberators. We made several mistakes and misplaced our priorities. The country has been in steady decline ever since. The conservative economic structure that was instituted, failed (no big surprise). Our refusal to treat Iraqi citizens with dignity and respect quickly turned to animosity.
Government, huh! What is it good for?
Rush Limbaugh mocked Americans trapped in a war zone. He and other right wing pundits on TV and radio have made it clear that they don't believe that it's the government's responsibility to rescue citizens abroad, or at home as we saw during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. This latest opinion or GOP talking point stresses the difference between the left and right in American politics.
What do you believe? Does government owe something to the people it represents, or does it not? What is the purpose of American governance? For an answer we only have to look to the preamble of the Constitution. It reads:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
To me that means that our government is "we the people." A representative body that governs only at our consent. It also tells me the responsibilities of government include to promote the general Welfare of the citizenry. So the choice is clear. Does government exist for the good of the citizenry, or is it good for nothing? If you believe the latter I charge that it is because the governed are content with it.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that the price for freedom is eternal vigilance. Participation in the process. Paying attention to your representatives, to be knowledgeable in the simple mechanics of our democracy. These are the responsibilities of living in a free society. Both the citizen's and the government's.
Do we care so little about our fellow citizens in times of need to ignore the awesome power of government to help them? Heck, I thought that's what we pay taxes for anyway.
