Rants

This Letter to the editor was written and sent as the World Trade Centers collapsed. it was printed in the letters to the editor in the Austin American Statesman on Sept 11th and 12th, 2001.

I scream in anger and frustration as I watch the World Trade Center collapse, the pentagon burn and you Mr. President are looking into space. Will this change your mind or will you do what your defense contributors want? If you keep isolating us, keep acting unilaterally this will keep happening. You must engage your enemy. To keep him close is to know where he is. Your first statement of outrages was “we will hunt down and find them”. The evil people who did this will call and take credit! Do you know where our enemies are? Somebody please lead us…

As I watch John Ashcroft say he was clueless about 9/11 because he had bad computer systems because of not enough money. I listen to other in the FBI say they didn’t have enough manpower to connect the dots to Saudi Nationals taking flying but not landing lessons. I wonder if $52 million dollars, 28 attorneys and 78 FBI agents working for six years might have helped. That is what your Republican congress spent on investigating a stain on a blue dress while those flying lessons where being planned and financed. That is what you should remember in November.

I think Reagan’s face should be put on the dime so that the next few generations will never forget who spent their future on the wealthy few. As president, Reagan tripled our national debt in just 8 years, mortgaged our county’s future and wiped out any hope that we could offer our decedents the New Deal promised for ALL hard working Americans. It seems appropriate to replace the face of the New Deal with the face of “The Greatest Generation”. Sure they waged a just war. Then they came home, raised selfish kids (the boomers) and racked up 7 trillion in debt in the last 40 years of their lives. It is debt that our grandchildren and their great-great-grandchildren will continue to drown under. The “Greatest Generation”? That should be reserved for those that will pay off our massive debt! Unfortunately it will be many generations not just one selfish one.

Bush told us war with Iraq would be cheap needing few troops. The cost is 87 billion American dollars just this year; a soldier a day is killed and National Guard troops are on indefinite duty. Bush told us it was imperative to take away Sadam’s WMD’s so he wouldn’t give them to terrorists. No WMD’s and terrorists are walking into Iraq and taking shoulder fired rockets from unguarded weapons stashes. Sadam is still missing and Bush told us “mission accomplished”. Bush told us the Iraqi people would cheer us. Last week 10,000 Iraqis demonstrated against us. Bush told us he would get those responsible for 911. Osama is sending us videos of his hikes! Bush is telling us everything is just fine in Iraq. But Bush has told us a lot of things. What has he done? Blame everything on anything else but his team. That is not leadership.

Today, finally Bush admits he is either incompetent or a liar. “Bush claim based on shaky report” (AAS 7/8/03). If only it was on the front page not on page A-6, I might not believe the press is a bunch of Bush & Corporate apologists. The reasons for war in Iraq were based on lies. The Clinton administration spent 8 years on the front page because of a stain on a blue dress. Bush gets caught with his hand in the war cookie jar and he is on page 6. The “free” press has become a joke. What a disappointment the “Fourth Estate” has become.

If Bush and his cronies manipulated CIA information to bolster their argument for going to war and provided this fraudulent information to our elected representatives our Federal Statues offer this solution. FIVE YEARS IN PRISON!

Here is the Federal statute. Section 371; Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States. If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

I wish to express my thanks to Republican Chairman Terry Alford. He so eloquently expressed the republican hypocrisy on redistricting; I could hardly keep from laughing. He thinks MY city should be broken up but not HIS city. HIS city has common interests MINE do not. He said the pain involved in redistricting should only be inflicted on Travis not Caldwell county. What more need said? Vote NO to taxation without representation!

This is an open letter to all reporters. I cringe as I call you “reporters”. You seem to be willing to trade access for credibility. I learned from an editorial not a reporter that when the Whitehouse said “Bush had to land by jet because the aircraft carrier was to far from shore”, was a lie. They had the ship turned so we would not see the shore in the background. A photo you are sure to see in the next election. Did the embedded, cringe again, reporters turn their cameras to show the shore or did they dutifully show only what the administration wanted us to see? Maybe they just didn’t notice a city behind them? All prove you undeserving the title “reporter”. Hard nose reporting used to be the standard for the fourth estate. Get some self respect, put your job on the line, and report the full story!

Has anyone else noticed our Attorney General John Cornyn is more interested in helping big corporations protect themselves from citizen lawsuits? Than he is in collecting child support payments, and keeping $1.2 million federal dollars coming to help collect child support? (Unit money in jeopardy 2/15) Are these proper priorities for an elected official?

Child support collection was a top priority of his election campaign. Nice platform for getting votes. But doing favors for big corporations is repayment for all those campaign contributions. He is spending the people’s time soliciting untraceable donations from corporations. (Molly Ivins 2/15) This to help protect his big business contributors from the consumers that he is elected him to represent. This should be the poster case for campaign finance reform.

Add Republican Leadership to the growing list of oxymoron's. By not ratifying or postponing the vote on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The GOP proved their inability to lead this country. They rushed the NTBT bill to the floor of the senate without proper hearings to intentionally to kill the bill. If they didn’t like the treaty they could have proposed a different course of action or here’s a thought. Include the public in the debate.

We got to hear about Monica from these guys for months. But who in the congressional leadership got the public involved in this issue? Were Trent Lott and Tom Delay spelling out their views on nuclear proliferation and our role as a global leader on every talk show, newspaper and website like with Monica? A few hearings concerning the safety of the planet from nuclear destruction and months of discussion about a president lying about consensual sex in a civil matter. That’s not leadership.

Until a few days ago there was no question that the United States held the leadership position in trying to make a safer future for all the people of the world. Now there is uncertainty around the globe about what we stand for. What will fill that void?

Here’s another good one “Compassionate Conservative”. Wouldn’t that be a Democrat?

Here is one about a story in the Statesman about Coach Royal lobbying against the city that made him famous.

Dear coach Royal,

Has Austin be so bad to you that you would lobby for anti-Austin legislation for free (Royal on opposite sideline for Austin's loss in House, Statesman 5-2-99). Or was a free membership at Barton Creek Country Club to good to pass up. You lobbying for HB1704 on behalf of one of the worst polluters in the area is an excellent example of greed is great and self interest is more important than community standards. Since you are not registered as a lobbyist you must be either getting paid under the table. (Did they comp your membership at Barton Creek C.C.?) Or golf is more important to you than clean water. Enjoy your next round of golf at Barton Creek. While you play golf my kids will get to swim in a polluted Barton Springs pool. Your children and grand children can enjoy the clean pool at your Country Club so the heck with those that cannot afford a $30,000 membership. Thanks Coach Royal for this excellent example of greed over our children's future. I remember as a child climbing the tree in our back yard after a game to see the UT tower lit up orange. Now I realize it should have been lit up green.

One about the impeachment action against the President. Printed in the letters to the editor in the Austin American Statesman.

To those who believe that all lies are equal, they are not! The President should not have to answer questions completely, if the question is not proper. I have the right as a private citizen to refuse to answer any question under oath or not. The President politically does not have that same protection, so the only alternative is to not truthfully answer the question. Much like if someone asks you how much money you make or are you having sex outside your marriage. If the question is asked over and over. Do you have to answer honestly or would it be your prerogative to say you make less than you really do? You are not having an affair when you are. Is lying about a sexual affair the same as being asked if you subverted the constitution or traded on hostages lives or the lives of hundreds of Central Americans? We live in a world full of gray areas and you can not use black and white arguments to judge the Presidents actions. Impeachment...I think not! I strongly believe this is about subverting our electoral process by a small minority of the GOP...it will not be tolerated by the voters from either side of the center. I do vote!

You are receiving this because you are on a new political ranting list. This is the first of many rantings about the current situation (Sept 11, 2001) I feel coming on. I am screaming mad about what is happening to my children’s world. I find this a relatively safe way to let it out. There is a link below if you do not want to hear it, click it now and tell me to cut it out. Though I do hope you will read and respond whether you agree or disagree with any point of view. .

Please don’t anyone who reads this, take from the emails in the following months that I condone in any way what terrorists have done and will do again in any part of the world no matter the side. I feel deeply for the innocent victims of this evil attack and especially all who survive them. But because I see Declaring War and bombing innocents as a counter productive solution I rant! War will only breed more hatred and volunteers to “take on” the big bully acting as if we are the only morally valid viewpoint in the Middle East. What would we do if Saudi Arabia and Egypt decided to force their will in our hemisphere? Help me find the truth.

The answer to any of these problems is very illusive. I think two sides can only see the truth at the same time. Not by either side alone. Balance existing only in the middle is a universal truth. therefore it must take two biased observers (as all are) to see something that only resides in our hearts and minds. The truth may linger or show its self after we discuss something and think later “If I had only said this or that” or “ maybe that knucklehead does have a point”. You do not need to discuss our political failings with me especially if you agree. Just discuss it with someone that has a different view. That is how the truth finds it’s way into our collective conscience.

I think that understanding what is in the hearts of people who would kill themselves to kill us will take us closer to understanding the truth of what is behind this. I do not hold the party line as the only truth. I think that when history reflects back on 9/11/01 it will see a nation that for 20 years, when we had a chance to build our esteem coming out of the Cold War. We squandered our largess on a small region of the world for a few peoples interest and even fewer people’s profit, oh and 270 million peoples transportation needs. Maybe there is another side of this story that we are overlooking in our unquenchable thirst for instant revenge. Maybe instead of locking our self in jail like people with burglar bars do for “better security”. We should try to remove the desire to steal from the criminal?

Penalties are only short-term fixes. Crime goes down when the economy is good. It will work the same way when the “human poverty rate” is lower. People can only do what these terrorists did when things are so bad that to die is better or we killed a family member. There will always be wackos and religious zealots that will die for their cause, but their leaders must not want to recruit them. Their motivation can be either from fear of a direct reprisal of from shame from their civilized allies. (You are seeing that with Pakistan siding with the rest of the world in condemning the WTC Bombing. To kill anyone not directly involved with this particular attack is not justice, it is meant to spread terror. Then we are our enemy. Hatred is the enemy of us all.

Those of us that were and are still critical of the first Gulf War (while being chastised by others for being un-American) can say we told you this would happen. I can go to the tape. All because we (need?) and feel we have the right to take their oil for our cars! It is of little help that our President continues to tell us that we are being attacked because they hate our freedoms and we are a great and successful nation. Muslims do not respect us for those reasons. They are killing us because of the things our government has done in their countries and to their people.

Look at the symbol they struck. The WTC was the symbol of American Capitalism and Banking. The Pentagon the symbol of our military on Arab Soil. Maybe we are not always doing the “right thing” around the globe. Does this make me a bad American? Richard Falk, professor of international relations at Princeton, put it this way: "Western foreign policy is presented almost exclusively through a self-righteous, one-way legal / moral screen (with) positive images of Western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted political violence. We are keeping a no fly zone in Iraq unilaterally. No UN resolution, No agreement with any other country. We decided that we won so we set the rules in that country. It is but one example. All to rescue a Monarchy in Kuwait so our gas price would stay cheap.

If we find out these anthrax poisonings are from American born terrorists as is suspected. Will we smart bomb the state in which they reside? What if the towns’ people of Keep Out, Idaho are less than cooperative? Will we take out the town or overthrow its local government? No. We will follow the letter of the law of the United States of America! Do others deserve any less from us? If we are to be respected as standard-bearer for the rule of law we must be consistent. It’s our application of laws that keeps us free. Calling attacks by individuals a “war” on a sovereign nation is a thin veil of convenience to cover our desire for vengeance. One that not even our representative would declare.

A person in a restaurant disagreeing with me today about what our government’s response to the bombing of Sept 11^th should be. She said that she “was on Americas side.” I, I guess am not? That scares me and maybe I’m not on America’s side if those are words any American should be proud of uttering. Revenge is not the only answer! Hate is the enemy!

Here I sit Labor Day flipping channels, sitting down for a few minutes rest over the long weekend. Stopping at CNN I see George Bush speaking to unions. Union’s want the 25,000 jobs drilling in ANWAR might create. Our court appointed president is not mentioning depleting our natural resources and ruining a pristine wildlife area for six months supply of oil and huge profits for his oil cronies. Those cronies are GOP donors that use their profits to bust the same unions that cheer him today. Ask an air traffic controller the Reagan / Bush team put out of work because they wanted more time off if they attended the rally. Union membership has suffered ever since. While we all work two weeks more each year than in 1980, the unions cheer Bush proposing more Reagan / Bush deficit spending our way to the future. What are the union members thinking as Bush explains deficit spending as, “Who are you going to believe me or your lying checkbook!” Well it’s back to work, working people of America. We have debts to pay.

George W. Bush’s grasp of the scientific world and the English language never ceases to amaze me. In his remarks at a Republican fundraiser in Colorado, nice vacation planning. Bush was trying to make people believe he or anyone in his administration gives a dingdong about the environment. Trying to explain “Phantom Loads”, electricity used by devices in your home like cell phone chargers and your television set that use power even when turned off. Our court appointed President called them vampires. That mistake is cute I guess. But talking about phantom loads to bolster his image while cutting real dollars for real research involving renewable energy technology is the real issue that needs more explanation. Oil dollars maybe Mr. Bush?

Most of the opposition pieces are flag waving diatribes. I do not send out many like it because the “party line” is like a drumbeat you cannot escape from. The article does contradict some of my positions but it also strengthens my main position is many ways. The article concerns “why they hate us”. Many DO hate us, they add up. It does say we have made some “mistakes”. Those, if true would have to be owned up to, if we ever want to get to a solution to stopping terror attacks. Locking ourselves inside the prison is not a great long-term solution. Neither is hunting down & killing every last terrorist and their family members, when each you kill breeds three more. This article also does not really go into how bad some of our mistakes may have been. Nor did it explore the ramifications of what we have done to others, that we would not want done to ourselves. We cannot act surprised and indignant when the tactics we train and pay terrorists to use against others are used against us. Are we being true to ourselves when the President gets on TV and states, “they kill us because they hate freedom” and we do not question him?

Our "side" does not “Hate America”. We are a different group. We are Proud Americans embarrassed by our leaders decisions to support some very ugly people, doing very ugly things in the name of freedom. Or was that oil? Or was it money? Freedom in countries with monarchs? Or is it the freedom to do what we want around the world because we are Americans? We are mad at our leaders for not telling us the truth about what we can expect as reprisals for what we do in other countries. Even as we go on yet another unilateral action in another hemisphere. How can we as a country make and informed decisions. A decision that is required of us as informed consent in our constitution. The good we do is immeasurable. What we reap from that is magnificent and just as immeasurable. But the evil we support will find its way back to us. It’s easy to wave a flag. It is hard work to understand why you are doing it.

BTW The article did not talk of our support for the Shah of Iran or for supporting Iraq when Sadam use biological weapons against Iran. Oops!

Using the excuse that it is a “time of war” the airlines decided not to honor the collective bargaining agreement with their airline union. No severance pay for laid off employees. The airlines within days of the bombing demand billions of tax dollars for their shareholders from those who are not , yet they offer no pay cuts for executives. Guess who will pay to support those laid off. What patriots the airlines are. With no resistance in Congress and nothing but support from the executive branch. War is fought now to save corporations not people. Question: Where are the fiscal conservatives when corporations want welfare. Answer: handing it to them!

Defining Terrorism
It's essential. It's also impossible.
By Michael Kinsley

Thursday, Oct. 4, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. PT

Now may seem like an odd moment to be worrying that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. If ever there was a man of violence who didn't pose this issue, it is Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden is triply easy to classify. First, the attack of Sept. 11, assuming he was responsible for it, was on a murderous scale that makes quibbling over definitions seem absurd. Second, his political vision is the opposite of freedom: a repressive clerical state. Third, his method is "terrorism" in the narrowest definitional sense. It is designed to spread terror, almost apart from any larger goal.

Nevertheless, the definition of the word terrorism is a problem in what we'd better start calling the war effort. It's a problem for journalists: Reuters has banned the word in reference to Sept. 11 and CNN officially discourages it. Both news outlets have chosen perversely to hide an admirable concern for the safety of their reporters behind an idiotic moral relativism. Who are we to judge? Etc.

The definition of terrorism is a problem for law enforcement and civil liberties. If we're going to compromise our liberties over it without turning our country into a police state, we want the definition to be as narrow as possible and still do the job. The Justice Department's draft anti-terrorism bill defines terrorism to include "injury to government property" and "computer trespass," which seems way too broad. On the other hand, the Los Angeles Times quotes the chairman of the House intelligence committee, Porter Goss, R.-Fla., complaining that the bill could define terrorism to include bombing an abortion clinic—a definition that will not strike many other people as unreasonable.

Above all, the definition of terrorism is a problem because President Bush has chosen to define our mission as a war against "terrorism," not just against the perpetrators of the particular crime of Sept. 11. And he has promised victory. True, he has limited his goal to victory over terrorism of "global reach," but that is presumably a practical limitation, not a moral one.

The advantages of defining the war as one against terrorism, not just Osama Bin Laden, are obvious: It helps in rallying both the American citizenry and other nations to the cause, and if things go well it creates an opportunity to take care of other items on the agenda, such as Saddam Hussein. But the disadvantages are also obvious. First, unlike a war against Osama Bin Laden specifically, a war against "terrorism" is one we cannot win. Terrorism is like a chronic disease that can be controlled and suppressed, but not cured. By promising a total cure, Bush is setting America and himself up to turn victory into the appearance of defeat.

Second, using "terrorism" to win the support of other nations can backfire unless you have a definition you are willing to apply consistently. And there is no such definition. Defining terrorism was a major industry in Washington during the 1980s, when a definition was badly needed to explain why we were supporting a guerrilla movement against the government of Nicaragua and doing the opposite in El Salvador. No definition ever succeeded.

The difficulty is coming up with a definition of terrorism that does not depend on whose ox is gored. Otherwise you are conceding that one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The concept of terrorism is supposed to be a shortcut to the moral high ground. That is what makes it so useful. It says: The end doesn't justify the means. We don't need to argue about whose cause is right and whose is wrong because certain behavior makes you the bad guy however noble your cause.

So what distinguishes terrorism? Is it the scope of the harm? Most terrorist actions are fairly small-scale compared with the death and destruction committed by nation-states acting in their official capacities. Even Sept. 11 killed fewer people than, say, the bomb on Hiroshima—an act that many Americans find easy to defend.

So can "terrorism" mean acts of violence in support of political goals except when committed by a government? This sounds deeply cynical but actually makes a lot of sense. Giving governments a monopoly on violence is how we bring order out of chaos in the world. No matter how successful we are in developing international courts to prosecute official behavior (such as the atrocities of Slobodan Milosevic) as crimes against humanity, governments will be held to a lower standard than free-lance evildoers for the foreseeable future.

The difficulty is that looking for practical ways to get at furtive and elusive terrorists (or looking for sticks to beat other governments with) inevitably leads to the concept of "state-sponsored terrorism." This gives you someone to attack—and is often factually accurate—but is a hopeless conceptual muddle if non-government is the key to defining terrorism. "State-sponsored" also fails to distinguish the anti-Taliban rebel groups we're flooding with help from other groups we're trying to destroy.

So can terrorism be defined as certain gruesome practices that are unacceptable no matter what the cause? As tactics aimed at civilian non-combatants rather than professional soldiers? As strategies literally designed to create terror—fear, panic, despair—as their primary purpose? All these notions are carted out regularly, but none does the trick. All, in fact, are doubly inadequate: They leave out people you wish to include, and they include people you don't think deserve the label "terrorist" (possibly because you are supporting them financially or supplying them with weapons).

The most accurate definition of terrorism may be the famous Potter Stewart standard of obscenity: "I know it when I see it." Unfortunately, that kind of frankness would rob the term of its moral power—and, more important of course, most of its propaganda power as well.

Here are the REAL facts about the infamous case of the woman burned by coffee from McDonalds.

1. To get more coffee per pound of beans and increase profits, McDonald’s served its coffee up to 40 degrees hotter than other fast food eateries.

3. McDonalds had over 700 filed claims for burns from coffee but never lowered the temperature of the coffee.

4. The plaintiff in the case was not driving here car but was a passenger in another’s car and suffered 3^rd degree burns when she removed the lid & spilled the coffee.

5. Plaintiff was hospitalized for 8 days and had multiple surgeries due to the burns

6. Plaintiff only sued McDonalds after they refused to pay for her medical expenses

9. The judge reduced the verdict to $400K because he thought the penalty was too high.

This case is used over and over to justify an attempt by business to limit your right to sue them for their misconduct. It like all red herrings are effective only if you do not know the facts. Do you expect the coffee you get anywhere to be hot enough to do the kind of damage described below.

Third-degree burns can be life threatening, depending on the percentage of the body surface injured. Treatment involves skin grafts, and possibility of other procedures depending on the kind and extent of scarring.

All to make a few cents more per cup. And the animation below is from the McDonalds web site. I think it is a little guy polishing their image. What if this happened to your mother, wife or daughter. The next time you hear this come up, remember these facts. You MUST retain your rights. SAY NO to tort reform.