If it weren't for television the Neocons would of never come to power. If you compare FDR, Truman and Eisenhower to either of the Bush's (and today's Republican Congress) you have to admit that TV dumbed us down. What are the backgrounds of those five people? There is a major difference between the first three and the last two. With either Bush background it would have been impossible to have gotten elected in the 40's and 50's. You can see the difference in the look in someone's eyes if they watch TV or if they read. If you give up TV anybody would notice they were smarter in two months I think. Take the more brain challenge and give up Television.

Energy is of vital importance to all organisms. Homo Sapiens have prospered as a species not only because of superior intellect, but also because of their ability to capture artificial supplies of renewable and non-renewable energy. These artificial supplies consist of the work of draft animals, stored carbon (plants), fossil carbon (oil, coal, and natural gas) and primordial energy (nuclear). Of these energy supplies, oil is most vital, as there is no effective substitute for liquid fuels in transportation and for oil as a feedstock for petrochemicals. It is becoming increasingly apparent that world oil production has reached a peak or will shortly, after which worldwide supplies will be unable to meet demand. The US peaked in 1971 and solved the problem of diminishing oil production via imports; however, once the world peaks, there will be nowhere to turn to for more supply. The peaking of world oil production has extremely serious economic, geopolitical, and social/behavioral consequences as Homo Sapiens enters the post-peak era. "Peak oil" is regarded by some scholars to be the greatest challenge yet faced by our species, since the Earth's carrying capacity itself has been artificially enhanced by the availability of cheap non-renewable energy.

The Bush administration fully understands peak oil, yet refuses to level with us other than to parrot platitudes such as "America is addicted to oil!". Since Bush/Cheney came to office, they have put peak oil center-stage in foreign policy. Our presence in Iraq is driven by peak oil, our saber-rattling with Iran and Venezuela is driven by peak oil, and our immigration policy (read: Mexico) is driven by peak oil. BP understands peak oil, and the depletion of Alaskan resources; that is why they slacked off on maintenance of the Alaskan pipeline. Why invest in infrastructure; Alaskan production is toast. Baked in a Tandoori oven, if you prefer. Here in the southwest, Iraq, Iran, Alaska and South America seem far away, but Mexico is close at hand.

We (the US) stand to lose big-time as Mexico's oil depletes and their exports to the US stop. Mexico has long been a net exporter of crude oil, and has been one of the US's most important suppliers in the years following the USA's own peak in domestic production. Objective data point to Mexico's oil production peaking soon (if not already), following which a steep decline is unavoidable. The supergiant field Cantarell, second in size only to the Saudi's Ghawar, is falling off a cliff. Accordingly, Mexico's importance as a crude supplier to the US will plummet in the next 5-10 years, which will sharply curtail supplies from one of our three biggest providers (a group including Canada and Saudi Arabia).

Not only will Mexico's economy suffer, Mexico's government stands to be in chaos, as it is financed in large part by revenues from Pemex. Mexico cannot even think of looking for deepwater oil as the government has skimmed off all the profits and left none for reinvestment. As their economy hemmorages, the flood of economic refugees will make today's situation appear to be a trickle.

Anticipating this, Bush/Cheney tell us we need a big fence to keep the refugees out, while letting us naively believe we must do so for other reasons. As Mexico plummets, it just gives Hugo Chavez more leverage to dictate terms and conditions to us. Bush and Cheney will next find a reason to invade Venezuela. Already our military presence in Colombia has more to do with protecting oil flows than curtailing the flow of drugs.

If Mexico were 20-30 years away from the oil peak and able to further raise production (and specifically exports to the US in preference to China), it is doubtful we would be seeing the border issue on Bush's radar screen. That is not to advocate a lifeboat ethics relationship with Mexico. We will soon be just as miserable in El Norte.

Article in the Racine Journal Times

This was in my old home town newspaper.

Link

MOUNT PLEASANT Four years ago, when Elliot Anderson joined the Marine Corps, the then-Mount Pleasant resident was fully ready to serve his country and he has.

Anderson served his four years, was promoted to sergeant, went to Afghanistan, experienced the deaths of fellow Marines, and was honorably discharged last August.

Now, hes facing the possibility of being recalled and sent to Iraq; the Bush administration recently announced it may start drawing from inactive Marines to wage the Iraq war.

Both Anderson, 23, and his father, Ed Anderson of Mount Pleasant, are seething at the news of a possible recall of Marines to fight what they say has been a botched war by the administration.

Im pretty irritated about it, Elliot said Sunday by phone from Las Vegas, where he is working as a dealer in a casino and starting college at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas today.

I get pretty frustrated that, because you (the Bush administration) messed up, youre going to mess up my life.

When we were in Vietnam, none of these guys did anything, he added.
The Marines will ask for volunteers first, but Elliot scoffed at that notion. I laughed when they said they were going to ask for volunteers, and I thought, Wow, good luck with that.

He will be more likely than most to be sent into Iraq if and when inactive Marines start being recalled. Im a sergeant. Thats probably going to hurt me, Elliot said. Even in peace time, the Marines are traditionally short of that rank.

Moreover, he is a machine gunner, and the military wants combat arms. If Elliot is recalled, he surmised he could be sent for about a year to 18 months.

Its hard to tell who is more critical him or his father of the policies that now put people like Elliot at risk of recall.

What a lot of times people dont see is the personal side to a lot of this stuff, Ed said. People such as his son are trying to get on with their lives. But, because of the total mismanagement in Iraq, these guys are going to get called back in.

Anderson, a guidance counselor at Indian Trail Academy in Kenosha, said his feelings about the war began to harden when a former student, Eric Clark of Pleasant Prairie, was killed in Iraq. It personalized the war for him.

Im just real unhappy, Ed said. (Elliot) volunteered before 9/11, he put off college to serve his country. He went to a combat area.

He continued, We didnt have to go in (to Iraq) to begin with. Hussein was contained. Every reason Bush has given for the war has been proven baseless, Anderson contended.

Its so frustrating that these young guys are dying over there because this administration has this obsession with having a democracy over there.

Elliot said he thinks the U.S. presence in Iraq is a proven mistake. Right now its very clear to me that the longer were there, the more its hurting us.

Every day were there, al-Qaida recruits more people.

Meanwhile, he said Iraq ties up the U.S. military when other nations, such as Iran and North Korea, are bigger threats to national security.
If Elliot is recalled, the U.S. military will get only a bitter young man who does not believe in the cause. He said fellow Marines he has talked to, who were formerly gung-ho, feel the same way.

Im not going to concern myself with a mission I think is flawed, Elliot said. It will be just staying alive.

He was asked if there might be any possibility of getting out of an attempted recall. I probably could if I really, really tried, he replied, but thats not very honorable either, because then some other Marine is going to get called up, and Im not better than that Marine.

Link

Please read this and come to your senses. Strip Lieberman of all committee assignments NOW

NOW! What the hell is wrong with you man? Are you insane? Lieberman is a cancer on the democratic party. CUT HIM OUT!

For all of you who have never heard the word I have just made up let me explain it to you. Valuespeak is not talking about issues, its talking about values. That is one thing Democrats just don't do enough. That is why we keep getting beat. If we simply said that every day that the President was not acting "American" enough and that the Democratic Party would renew American Values we would do so much better as a party. How about, "Mr. President it isn't very American of you to violate the law and the constitution with illegal wiretaps. Espicially when the law and the constitution provides you all the tools you need to protect the country from the evil of terrorism. Mr. President we are a democracy, you may be the decider, but you arent our dictator. You need to be an American and follow our laws and not mislead people by telling them that our laws dont give you the power to protect the country from terrorism. Shame on you Mr. President, trying to use terrorism to undermine our basic American values!". If at every event we hold we decorated it in red white and blue we would do much better as a party. We have been getting out foxed on this all the time! Every day out of the Republican Party's mouth it is America this, America that. We should not seed Patriotism! It is not the Republican Party's alone. We have let people think we don't love our country because we are more professional when we speak on issues, not on values. We have to incorporate them more. We have to outwit them. Every day we should be talking about American Values!

We also must frame issues. Instead of saying we should withdrawl from Iraq, lets say "We want to win by reducing our footprint in Iraq. By taking away some of our presence there we can reduce the capability of the terrorist organizations in Iraq to recruit new suicide bombers and allow the United States to prevail". If we keep saying the word win, we can't get charged with somehow not wanting to win. Thats our plan. We want to reduce our footprint so we can win!

It is so simple. Valuespeak. Manipulating words so that they can be used more effectivly for a Blue Victory in 06

Today's ruling is the latest example of how the Bush Administration has jeopardized our efforts in the war on terror. The Administration's decision to ignore the Constitution and the Congress has come at the expense of the security of the American people. Instead of being five years into an effective strategy we are back at square one. We now have the opportunity to take a new direction. It is time for the Administration to work with the Congress to develop effective tools to defeat terrorists. Senate Democrats stand ready to work with the Administration and Congressional Republicans toward that goal.

Check out this great article in the Las Vegas Sun:

The rules of the political game have changed for Democrats - as evidenced by Tuesday's primary in Connecticut. And Sen. Harry Reid could see it coming 18 months ago.

In Connecticut on Tuesday, party elder Sen. Joseph Lieberman was upset by upstart anti-war millionaire Ned Lamont, with the help of a legion of new activists.

Lieberman was rejected by Connecticut Democrats because he was seen as too cozy with President Bush and the Republican power structure. He seemed oblivious to the partisanship that has gripped Washington since at least 2000, when he was the party's vice presidential nominee.

Welcome to my new blog, Iraquagmire. I was invited to create by "Give em Hell Harry (Reid)". I signed his letter and added comment that the proposed withdrawal and role change for US troops in Iraq area must have ANOTHER COMPONENT:

We need to "encourage" by all peaceful, diplomatic and economic means that the government of Iraq immediately CONFEDERATE into THREE MAJOR PARTITION AREAS of Shia, Sunni and Kurds.

This partition needs to be accompanied by the creation of a provisional INTERNATIONAL CITY of Bagdad under the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

The three confederate states and the international city of Bagdad should share in a per capita or other equitable division of the OIL REVENUES of the area know on maps as Iraq. The use of these revenues is restricted from armament purchase and for use of rebuilding, feeding and educating people and other economic development initiatives.

We all know that "Iraq" was a forced creature of the former British empire. If they want to become a country after they have been a confederacy, great. (Why do we insist that they should skip the Articles of Confederation stage that our own democracy used in formation?)

H (Harry) C Jay Powell, Veteran for Peace and Chaplain for the Common Good

Joe Lieberman and his Rovian friends are the unpopular extremists. The "get-out-of-the-Iraq-quagmire position" is popular. Please amplify this message. The majority of the electorate will be with you, if you let people know you are with them. The national security issue boogeyman is dead, dead, dead.

Just to give you a summary, the GOP loses on the answers to the following questions, summing across multiple polls:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

"Which political party - the Democrats or the Republicans - do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?"

"If a candidate for Congress supports the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, would that make you more likely to support that candidate for Congress, more likely to oppose that candidate, or wouldn't it make much difference in your vote?"

"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

"Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be increased, decreased, or kept about the same?"

"Would you describe Iraq as currently in a civil war, not in a civil war but close to one, or is the situation less severe than that?"

"Do you think the Bush Administration does or does not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq?" "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war with Iraq?"

"Do you think the U.S. should withdraw SOME troops from Iraq by the end of the year, or do you think the U.S. should keep the SAME NUMBER of troops in Iraq through the end of the year?" If "Withdraw": "Do you think the U.S. should withdraw ALL troops from Iraq by the end of the year, or do you think the U.S. should keep SOME troops in Iraq through the end of the year?"

"Which comes closer to your view about U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date. The U.S. should keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary without setting any timetable for withdrawal."

"Which comes closer to your view about the war in Iraq? You think the U.S. will DEFINITELY win the war in Iraq. You think the U.S. will PROBABLY win the war in Iraq. You think the U.S. CAN win the war in Iraq, but you don't think it WILL win. OR, You do not think the U.S. CAN win the war in Iraq."

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

"Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?"

"Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?"

"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"

"How would you say things are going for the U.S. in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq? Would you say things are going very well, somewhat well, somewhat badly, or very badly?"

"Which of these do you think is most likely? (1) Iraq will become a stable democracy in the next year or two. (2) Iraq will become a stable democracy, but it will take longer than a year or two. OR, (3) Iraq will probably never become a stable democracy."

"Who do you think is currently winning the war in Iraq: the United States, or the Iraqi resistance and insurgents, or neither side?"

"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?"

"How do you think the war with Iraq is affecting the United States' image in the world? Is the war making the U.S. image in the world better, making it worse, or is the war having no effect on the U.S. image in the world?"

"Do you think the war with Iraq has made U.S. diplomatic efforts in the rest of the Middle East easier, harder, or has it had no effect?"

"Do you think the U.S. presence in Iraq is leading to greater stability in the Middle East, less stability, or doesn't it have any effect on the stability of the Middle East?"

"If the U.S. stays in Iraq for several more years, do you think that will eventually make the United States more safe from terrorism, less safe, or won't it make any difference?"

Please circulate this memo. These data are why Ned Lamont is popular, and these are not just Connecticut polls. Run a popular national message nationally and you will win big. Rove and his flying monkeys are bluffing you.

Hope that helps!

Despite five years of setbacks, no one should give up hope. With the right leadership, the promise of stem cell research will be realized. For too long, our nation has been stuck in the wrong direction because President Bush and the Republican Congress have stood in the way. On this anniversary, Democrats remain undeterred. We will continue to fight to bring the benefit of stem cell research to millions of Americans. After so much delay, the time has come for a new direction.

Democratic Leader Harry Reid and DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer issued the following joint statement today on the Connecticut Senate race:

"The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken and chosen Ned Lamont as their nominee. Both we and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fully support Mr. Lamont's candidacy. Congratulations to Ned on his victory and on a race well run.

"Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction."

Senator Reid,
The following is a letter I wrote to Joe Lieberman and intend to widely circulate, should he follow through with his pledge to continue his campaign for US Senate as an Independent. This is a crucial time for Democrats to band together. Doing so will exponentially increase our chance at winning back Congress in November, as it will show the strength and unity which many voters feel are missing. I sincerely hope, that as the party's chosen leader in the Senate, you will honor the will of the Democratic Party in Connecticut even if Senator Lieberman will not. Anything less is a huge set back in the overall effort to win back the Senate this year. I strongly encourage you to do whatever you can to dissuade Senator Lieberman from continuing his campaign and to publicly denounce his decision to do so, should he stand undeterred.

Sincerely,

Brian McFadden
South County Democratic Club, Orange County CA
--------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Lieberman,
Our forefathers envisioned an America where elected officials honored the spirit of Democracy by placing the will of the voters above their own political agenda. Were this truly the case I'm confident you would now be serving your second term as Vice President. Unfortunately, six years ago, Florida's Secretary of State decided to join with the Bush campaign in a collective decision to put their own self-interests above the will of the people, and you were robbed of your duly elected post. How ironic that now, six years later, you must decide whether or not to put your own personal political interests above the collective will of Democratic Party, to which you've been fighting so hard to prove that you truly belong.

If you had decided to run for re-election as an Independent because you honestly felt you could not represent the interests of your constituents to the best of your abilities under the current Democratic Party that would be one thing. However, jumping from one party to another to maximize your own chance of winning is indicative of the same despicable "win at all costs" philosophy that Karl Rove and Tom Delay now exemplify. Those who believe political affiliations are nothing more than meaningless titles for politicians to take on and off as it suits them do their Parties a great disservice and should not hold elected office under their banners. I believe you lost this election because you simply do not see the danger the Bush Administration poses to democracy and civil rights, worldwide. If you truly appreciated the severity of the situation you would never draw time, energy and resources away from the essential task of electing a Democratic Congress in November. I understand it must be difficult to accept that you lost this election. However, if you truly are the Democrat you claim to be, you will show the voters that you have the integrity to do the honorable thing and respect the collective will of the party to which you chosen to be a member; Support the winner of the Democratic Primary. Support Ned Lamont.
   Read More »

Good morning Minority Leader Reid:

In order to ensure Democrats take the Senate and the House this fall, we must put primary differences behind us. Please announce your support of Ned Lamont, who Connecticut Democrats have tonight chosen as their Senate nominee. Ned Lamont, the nominee, deserves your support, as do Connecticut Democrats who have spoken.

Please announce your support of Ned Lamont. Democrats should not have any distractions going forward to defeat George Bush's agenda for America in November. Connecticut's junior Senator needs to understand that re-taking the Senate and the House are our national party's priorities. Ned Lamont can help a united Democratic Party achieve that.

Thank you for your service to the United States of America and to the Democratic Party, sir.

Would you ask him a question, tell a joke or talk politics?

The South is ready for Harold Ford. America is ready for Harold Ford! I was lucky enough to be in the audiance at the Indiana Democratic JJ dinner when Harold Ford gave the key note speech. The man has it. Ford has both charisma and a "get it done yesterday" attitude. According to Time Magazine, the South has not sent a black Senator to Washington since Reconstruction.   Read More »

I must confess to having been interested in political philosophy for a long time. I managed to obtain a Master's Degree in Sociology and got involved in various campaigns and movements over the years. Nothing, however, galvanized me like the presidential election of 2000 and its sequel in 2004.

Since then I have contributed to the democratic movement in many of the usual ways, but technology - in the form of blogs - is allowing me to contribute another way. Both here and in my Blogspot blog - Jefferson's Parlor - I hope to contribute an outline of the perspectives, ideas and values which I believe can constitute a philosophical foundation of our modern democratic movement.

I would like to thank Sen. Reid for this opportunity, and for all of his efforts toward the salvation of our American democracy. I would also like to invite any other person who's interested in democratic political philosophy to drop a line here or at my other blog.

I'm terribly disappointed with this situation we have this week in the Senate.

This should have been a good legislative week.

We should be feeling good after having passed legislation to restore the coastline in Louisiana and Mississippi.

We should be feeling good after having passed legislation to protect the pensions of 45 million Americans.   Read More »

This is one of the most despicable ploys I have ever seen this Republican Congress attempt.

Story

The Republican Party is trying to make it look like it is raising the minimum wage. The first element to this ploy of theirs is to package it with an estate tax cut for estates over ten million dollars. These people are the wealthiest people in America and do definatly not need the help. Secondly, with the language in the bill they are actually gutting the minimum wage for tip earners. I am a dealer in Las Vegas Nevada and tips are what we work for. What this bill is doing is allowing companies to bypass additional state protections that have been put in place to protect people who work for tips. What the Republican Party is trying to do is make the tips that workers earn subsidize the requirements that the indvidual companies have to their employees under Nevada's labor laws. So instead of giving tips to the employee for good service, what you are doing is paying for the companies cost of business. This is absurd. Not only is the whole concept wrong, but the Republican Party who says it is for State's Rights is butting into Nevada's business, and the other states who have additional labor protection. The Republican Party's motto should be, "State's Rights, unless we disagree with you". Thank god for Senator Reid's opposition to this Republican farce. Give 'Em Hell Harry