Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Another Summer Encore
A quick note: you can subscribe to this site via Feeburner, just click on the Feeburner icon to the left and keep up to date on changes to the site. Enjoy.
Michael Moore: Treacherous Traitor
By
Scott C. Smith
Much to the chagrin of right-wingers, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 has been a huge box office success. So far it’s taken in over $80 million, earning back over 13 times what it cost to produce.
Conservative groups have tried to stop the movie from being screened. Move America Forward was one of the first organizations to try and stop Moore. In the weeks prior to film’s release, they engaged in a letter-writing campaign to get movie theater chains not to screen the film. Their efforts failed; the movie is now playing in over 2000 theaters.
Next up was Citizens United. Their angle was that advertising for Fahrenheit 9/11 violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. It remains to be seen if their efforts will bear fruit. My guess is it will not.
Now we have Jon Alvarez. Alvarez has formed a group called Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood and he wants Michael Moore charged with treason. Notice a trend here? Right-wingers hate dissent. They’ve expended so much energy trying to silence Michael Moore, all which have failed so far.
Alvarez’s petition, posted to web site, (Note: the site is currently down) makes the following charge:
"More of our soldiers are dying as a result of Moore and his movie, and America is increasingly being threatened because of Moore's turncoat treachery. By falsely portraying our government in a negative light, as liars and manipulators, as well as our troops as baby killers and torturers, he incites blood-thirsty terrorists to strike at our homeland, our citizens and military personnel in an effort to weaken America's resolve to fight on to victory."
Now that’s serious! Michael Moore’s movie has caused the death of our troops! Why hasn’t the media taken this story and ran with it?
I attempted to reach Jon Alvarez about his petition and the charge that Moore’s film was causing the death of soldiers. His response to me was short, and predictable:
"…However, from a brief scan of your website, I'll have to take a pass on the interview, we really have nothing to discuss. You're a partisan on the wrong side of history. God Bless America! Your side will lose…"
I wonder what we’re going to lose? I didn’t know it was a contest. Since Alvarez wouldn’t answer my question, I decided I’d post the question to the forum at Alvarez’s web site. Maybe there he’d respond to his charge about Moore’s film causing the deaths of American soldiers. But no, his response was just bluster:
"Yes, Moore and the Hollywood left, over the past year and more, have emboldened the opposition of our enemies around the world as well as the anti-war opposition across the globe. The actions of these people, by word and deed, have forced the USA to pick up the slack that the international community should have shared... That translates into more American troops not only carrying the lion's share of the burden, but also being exposed to higher casualty rates than we would have seen had, let's say, France and Germany participated, or the UN."
So, the statement is a lie, and Marine Corps Captain Bruce Frame, a spokesman with the United States Central Command, confirmed to me that no soldiers had died due to Moore’s film. In an ironic twist, European/Pacific Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper, reported on July 1 that the Army-Air Force Exchange Service was in discussions with Lion’s Gate, Fahrenheit 9/11’s distributor, to screen the movie at military theaters. Applying Alvarez’s logic, the leadership of the Army-Air Force Exchange Service would also have to be charged with treason.
In the months to come we’ll see more efforts to counter Michael Moore. Rookie filmmaker Michael Wilson is putting the finishing touches on his film Michael Moore Hates America. Wilson makes the claim at his web site that, “Contrary to its title, Michael Moore Hates America isn’t a hatchet job on the filmmaker. It’s a journey across the nation where we meet celebrities, scholars and average folks alike, and we find out whether the American Dream is still alive! In the process, we’ll look at Michael Moore’s claims about the country, its people, and our way of life.” I guess you have to have an inflammatory title to sell tickets.
With each campaign launched to stop Michael Moore, the publicity results in increased ticket sales. What are conservatives so afraid of? Do they think George W. Bush is so vulnerable that one movie is enough to cause him to lose the presidential election? I suspect we’ll next see a movement to have Moore charged with the Sedition Act of 1798. Nevertheless, Fahrenheit 9/11 will continue to sell tickets, and even military audiences will eventually get to see the film. Michael Moore doesn’t hate America. His opposition does.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Summer Reruns
From Right to Left: the adventures of a liberal veteran
By Scott C. Smith
The first time I voted in a presidential election was in 1988. I’m ashamed to admit that I voted for George Herbert Walker Bush. I don’t even have a good defense for my actions. Like most members of the armed forces, I voted Republican. It’s my shame.
By Scott C. Smith
The first time I voted in a presidential election was in 1988. I’m ashamed to admit that I voted for George Herbert Walker Bush. I don’t even have a good defense for my actions. Like most members of the armed forces, I voted Republican. It’s my shame.
I joined Reagan’s military machine in 1986 at the age of 17. I did not do a lot of research in making this decision. I remember seeing a pamphlet for the U.S. Navy at my high school’s career center, and as I leafed through the pamphlet, I saw that the Navy had journalists! As a budding journalist (I wrote for my high school paper) I thought enlisting in the Navy was a great idea. I didn’t realize the other branches of the armed forces also had journalists. If I had known that I would have gone with the Air Force; they have better uniforms and call their barracks ‘dorms.’ Also, they were very generous in allowing members to take time off to work on political campaigns. Oh wait, that’s wrong, sorry. I’m thinking of the Texas Air National Guard.
My first duty station was at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. As I was land-based I have no good excuse as to why I didn’t educate myself about politics. Although, and I’m a little embarrassed to say, I was drunk most of the time. Just kidding. Some of the time.
I don’t even remember if I registered to vote when I turned 18. It was a different time, I guess, and without the benefit of information sources like the Internet, I had no easy way to learn more about the candidates or collect pornography.
Today’s children are more politically savvy than I was at that age. Case in point: World Net Daily columnist Kyle Williams. The kid is 15 and already he’s writing a column and has even published a book. Although his style is a watered-down version of Sean Hannity’s philosophy, still, he knows more about politics than I did when I was 15. At 15, if you had asked me what the line of succession was, I surely would have brought up Disney Land. Hell, even grown adults who are supposed to know what it is get confused. I’m looking at you, Alexander Haig.
So, I voted Republican. And my horrible shame – my vote for Bush/Quayle – resulted in a victory for Bush, and a symbolic kick in the groin for Dukakis. I should point out that the Willie Horton ads did NOT influence my vote. In fact, I actually thought Willie Horton was Dukakis’ running mate, that’s how ignorant I was.
In 1990 it was time for me to pick my next duty station. I picked the USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19), which was based out of Yokosuka, Japan, so I was pretty jazzed about getting to visit Tokyo. Until Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and really screwed up my travel plans. I ended up serving for Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and by that time I was not very happy with the Bush administration. That war was a defining moment for me in my transformation to a liberal Democrat.
I left the Navy in 1992, and cast my very first vote for a Democrat when I voted for Bill Clinton.
I wasn’t any more politically savvy in the 1990s than I was in the 1980s. But the Internet changed that, when I first had access to it in 1995, and discovered the world of Usenet, Internet message boards. In between arguments over which Enterprise captain was better, Kirk or Picard, I started to engage in political discussions. And, of course, easy access to porn.
In 2001 I finally got around to registering a domain. Now I’d have a venue to write anything I wanted on any topic I wanted! I was so excited I did nothing with it for two years. By September 2003 I was very much against the war in Iraq, and I started my web site, What’s In Scott’s Head. At my site, I write about politics, and most of all, I write in an effort to slam Republicans and every pungent idea they stand for.
Oh, and conservatives hate a liberal who is also a veteran and who opposes the war in Iraq. Hate mongers began to take opportunities to write to me and express their opinions about me being a veteran. I haven’t received a lot of e-mails, but the ones I do get are not friendly. Here’s an example from last November (and I’ll leave any typos intact, as they add to the overall tone of the mail. Well, it’s really just an excuse to make fun of them):
“For you to include yourself in the group of military heros called ‘vets’ is an insult to them and the country they served so grandly. While you ‘toiled’ on a ship in a non-combat position, other real ‘vets’ were out there flying combat missions, walking in hostile territory with an infantry unit, or other such real combat scenarios. You have the audacity to criticize our President for not attending individual Vet Day observances? How many places can he be at one time you idiot? What exactly did you do to observe Vets Day, submit more treasonous postings to your web page?I and other past members of our great military know what a real vet is; and you Mr. Smith are no real vet, despite what you keep telling yourself and your readers.”
“For you to include yourself in the group of military heros called ‘vets’ is an insult to them and the country they served so grandly. While you ‘toiled’ on a ship in a non-combat position, other real ‘vets’ were out there flying combat missions, walking in hostile territory with an infantry unit, or other such real combat scenarios. You have the audacity to criticize our President for not attending individual Vet Day observances? How many places can he be at one time you idiot? What exactly did you do to observe Vets Day, submit more treasonous postings to your web page?I and other past members of our great military know what a real vet is; and you Mr. Smith are no real vet, despite what you keep telling yourself and your readers.”
You can just feel the love. And no, I did not observe Veteran’s Day with more “treasonous” postings to my web site. I did write an article encouraging people to make donations to veteran charities, which I suppose can be confused as “treason” if you’re stupid.
The war in Iraq has really energized my writing, and with it came a very real hatred of the Bush administration and hypocritical right-wingers who dare to tell me that I’m not a “real” veteran. Believe me, serving on board a ship does not guarantee safety. Ships can be taken out with missiles, or they can run into mines. And my “non-combat” role during the war was to provide first aid to battle casualties, should any be brought to my ship.
I’ve cemented my position as a rabid left-winger by attending a Michael Moore rally last year. But, being your typical outdoor-fearing introvert, I have to rely on the written word to express myself, for the most part. And I’ll support the Democratic candidate at my web site.
I try to fight the good fight with endless insults against people like Sean Hannity and George W. Bush at my web site. It’s not easy to come up with insults all the time. My wife wants me to be more positive, but I don’t see a change in my attitude anytime soon. There’s just not enough sarcasm in the world, and I see it as my divine duty to spread the happiness and joy I feel in my heart.
Oh, and Sean Hannity sucks.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Eye On The Right: Michael Savage
Crazed right-wing nutter Michael Savage was in full force on his radio program July 14, with some choice words about liberals, taken from the Ann Coulter playbook. During a discussion about Israeli casualties with Hezbollah, Savage said:
"Now, I realize that the American left is cheering today. They'll probably break open the jug wine and cheer that Jews are dying, and that they're living and cowering in bomb shelters. One day, the "Deutschland Ãber alles" may be played in Jerusalem, and the American left can tear off their masks once and for all and show themselves to be what they really are -- which is the Nazis of our time."
Savage may have a point there. I'm Jewish, and even I broke out the "jug wine" and did a little happy dance over the deaths of my fellow Jews. All the while singing in German, of course. Because we liberals love our terrorists. And Nazis, apparently.
Of Hazbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, Savage said:
"This is the leader of the terrorist group Hezbollah -- a good friend of the liberal left wing, the Michael Moore wing, the Barbara Boxer wing, the Ted Kennedy wing, the anti-American wing of the Democrat Party would be in great accord with Hassan Nasrallah of the Hezbollah, who is saying things fundamentally that the left says in America, only in a naked way."
Now, I should state for the record that I do not know Hassan Nasrallah, although I've met him at "hate America" rallies. Because we liberals attend them every other week or so. Not really.
Does anyone take Savage seriously? When he says things like "liberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus," it's hard to believe he'd have much of a following. He also thinks Jimmy Carter is Hitler, which I have to admit is an apt description, since both Jimmy Carter and Hitler taught Sunday School at theirchurchess and spent their free time building houses for the homeless.
Maybe Savage and Ann Coulter can get together and attack 9-11 widows. They'd make a great team. Well, not great.
Speaking of Coulter, she was at it again on June 14th, blasting some of the 9-11 widows who dared to (gasp) endorse John Kerry for President and demand a 9-11 commission to investigate the attacks. Damn those widows! The nerve of them to have demanded a commission to investigate the attacks on 9-11. You can read the transcript here.
Monday, June 19, 2006
The Senate is set to vote soon on an amendment to the Constitution aimed at protecting the American flag from the scourge of the increasing incidents of flag burning and desecration. Oh, wait a minute. How many flags are burned in this country each year? A few, maybe? I don't even think there's a stat to track flag burning since it's so rare. But, our Congress felt it was a pressing issue and apparently there is support in the Senate to pass the legislation, and off to the states it goes for ratification. Could it be that Republicans are looking for a feel-good issue to give to supporters in time for the November mid-term elections? That seems more likely. Our tax dollars at work, a beautiful thing, when you think about it. So much going on in the world, so many pressing issues, but hey, let's make sure to protect the flag from the rare occurrence when people have exercised their first-amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled on two occasions that flag burning was protected speech, but the Republican-controlled Congress feels otherwise. No big surprise there.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Ann Coulter is back! She has a new book out and is flogging it all over television. Of course it's yet another attack against liberals. Luckily Coulter has the fame she has as a platform to express her views. I mean, lucky for her. Not for us.
Coulter has a new target in her book: some of the 9/11 widows. Apparently Ann doesn't like them speaking out against the Bush administration. In the book, Coulter says:
"These broads (9/11 widows) are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
Really? So, to Coulter, these women, once they lost their husbands, immediately kicked up their heels and did a happy dance? Coulter is clearly crazy. But I suppose she'll say anything to get herself on television and cater to her deragned right-wing audience. I haven't heard any right-wing voices criticizing Coulter for attacking a group of 9/11 widows. Too chicken shit, probably.
Here are a few other choice nuggets from that font of wisdom, Ann Coulter:
"To a liberal, 2,200 military deaths in the entire course of a war in Iraq is unconscionable, but 1.3 million aborted babies in America every year is something to celebrate."
Ann might have a point there. I was just getting ready to go out for my monthly abortion celebration. With all of my godless liberal friends. We'll celebrate each abortion, sympathize with terrorists, and get in a healthy dose of Bush-bashing while we're at it. Life is grand.
Coulter also believes "liberalism" is a religion that, apparently, has a platform of not believing in Christianity, or something to that effect. She says, "Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul."
Yeah, well, not everyone is a Christian, Ann, but that doesn't mean those of us who are not don't believe in "man's immortal soul." Where does she get this shit? Where she gets all of her other gems of wisdom: straight out of her ass.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Today is Memorial Day, the day to honor the sacrifices made by the members of our armed forces. While honoring the brave dead, today is a good day to consider making a charitable donation to an organization dedicated to helping veterans. One group Disabled American Veterans, is especially in need of help, with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan creating thousands of disabled veterans. Click here to check out their web site, and you can click here to make a donation. And to my fellow vets and those currently serving, a big thank-you for your service and sacrifice.
Friday, May 12, 2006
As USA Today reported the other day, it turns out the NSA has been gathering phone records of millions of Americans, as a means to combat terrorism. President Bush didn't confirm or deny the story, just saying that the administration wasn't looking at personal information and, of course, adding that it's all perfectly legal. While something might be legal, does that make it right? There are many legal activities folks engage in that others find objectible, and wish to put a stop to. So I'm wondering how many right-wing nutters will embrace the Bush administration's activities when it comes to surveillance of American citizens? Some Republicans are speaking out about the report from USA Today, such as Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, the Senate Finance Committee chairman, who said, of the phone companies turning over customer phone numbers to the government, "Why are the telephone companies not protecting their customers? They have a social responsibility to people who do business with them to protect our privacy as long as there isn't some suspicion that we're a terrorist or a criminal or something."
I suppose, in the eyes of the Bush administration, we're all suspects. Doesn't that give you a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling inside?
In other news, the latest Harris Interactive Poll has Bush with his lowest approval rating ever, down to just 29%. 69% of those polled said that things in the country have gotten "seriously off the right track."
Soon, Richard Nixon will be more popular a president than George W. Bush. A recent Gallup poll also showed that Bush's support with Republicans was dropping. Which means Republicans might not get that "coattail" vote in November. Coattailing is a political science concept about voting patterns, meaning supporters of the President will vote for candidates based solely on the criteria that the people they vote for are in the same political party as the President. If I were a Republican, I would really be shying away from Bush's coattails, what with his failure to get Social Security reform passed or his support for an amnesty program for illegal immigrants. Why do Republicans support Bush, anyway? He's not fiscally conservative. It's a real mystery. But potentially good news for Democrats come November.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Sorry for the lack of posts, folks. I'm taking a full load at school and it doesn't leave me much time to attend to my blog. It's a challenging term for me as well, as I'm taking four classes instead of my usual three. Now, if you're a younger reader, you might think four classes isn't all that much, but I'm turning 38 this year, and it's a bit different when you're what is known as a "non-traditional" student. I'm majoring in political science, which I thought would be as good a choice as anything considering my interest in the subject. It is fitting that I'm aiming for a BS in political science. A lot of politics is bullshit. But I digress.
Math is pretty hard when you haven't been in a math class since 1985. I'm having to learn everything all over again, which is challenging. In high school I only went as far as basic algebra, so now I'm at a point in my studies where I'm learning new things. So, a bit of advice if you're a younger reader and haven't gone to college yet: do so as soon as you can! It'll likely be easier.
I will say this about college: I'm still trying to find the crazy left-wing professors. Haven't encountered one yet. Frustratingly, my political science professor refuses to give us his opinion on political matters. And here I thought all college professors were wacko liberals. I guess my sociology professors were liberal. I haven't been able to figure out my math instructors. Conservative? Dunno. But even the few that have expressed liberal opinions, it wasn't a big deal. Do people think most college kids are so impressionable that they'd just blindly follow what the professors say? I guess so.
As I've mentioned in this space before, I had to give up standard cable TV to go to school, so I no longer get channels like CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. Fox has always been a gold mine of great material, but not having access to O'Reilly -- damn, I miss that. Or Hannity. I'm sure they're up to their usual tricks. Thank goodness for Media Matters for America, where at least I can read some transcripts or watch video clips of the crazy stuff that comes out of O'Reilly's and/or Hannity's mouths. For instance, O'Reilly claiming that no one at Fox News "toes any ideological line at all," which is odd considering the presence of people like Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto and my favorite Fox News personality, Sean Hannity, who is pretty conservative, unless something drastic has happened to the man recently. If you want the real truth about Fox News, watch Robert Greenwald's excellent documentary, Outfoxed.
I did enjoy reading about Rush Limbaugh being arrested, although in the end he entered a plea bargain where he'd plead not guilty and agree to go into an 18-month drug rehab program in exchange for having the charge of "doctor shopping" dropped. The question is, can Limbaugh stay in the program for 18 months? Wouldn't it be fun to see him do some jail time? We can only dream...
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
A new poll show's America's Decider-in-Chief is almost universally disliked across America, with the exceptions of Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Nebraska approving of Bush.
Big surprise, eh? Not really. Get ready for a shakeup this fall in the midterm elections. Another poll shows that, if the elections were held today, Democrats would not only take the House, but quite possibly the Senate, according to the most recent Harris poll (via PR Newswire). 41% of respondents said they would vote for the Democratic candidate if the election were held today.
Bush's approval rating is only 35%. 27% of respondents said the country was headed in the right direction. Even with Republicans, Bush's approval rating is only 71%. Shouldn't it be higher?
In other news, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan announced his resignation, and Karl Rove was moved from policy advisor to political advisor. Apparently the Bushies think Rove would be more effective in rallying the troops for the November elections. Good luck on that, Karl. You've quite the job ahead of you.
Republicans think that we liberals hate George W. Bush irrationally. That might be true for some. But I think it's safe to say most of us also do not respect the man, for what he has done to the country, for his many, many lies, and for the 2378 dead in Iraq. Bush may also be ready to launch nuclear weapons against Iran. That'll be a good thing for the region. Imagine how nuking Iraq will be a boon for Al-Qaeda recruitment. And all of those terrorists will be looking for American or European targets. Israel, too. On second thought, hating Bush isn't such a bad thing, after all.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Sorry for the lack of updates, dear reader. I'm taking four classes this term at school, which means lots of homework and little time for anything else.
First up: Adam Kontras has created a sick and twisted animation about the Bush administration's desire (undoubtedly) to bomb Iran. Thumbs up from me. There are other cartoons at the site as well. Check them out if you get the chance.
I wanted to comment on a news item from a few days ago. According to the Associated Press (via MSNBC), the U.S. has only spent 40% of the $7 billion appropriated in 2005 to train security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
From MSNBC:
"The slow pace of spending was outlined in a congressional report that also raised questions about whether the Pentagon needs the full $5.9 billion it has requested for training this year in an emergency spending bill that is pending in Congress.
The report comes as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration have complained about cuts in the funding for Iraqi forces that is included in the House-passed version of the bill."
So, one one hand, we have Rummy and the Bush administration complaining about cuts in funding for Iraqi security forces, and on the other hand, a report saying we're not spending enough money on training. Who's right? Well, I'd put my money on the congressional report over anything Bush, Cheney and Rummy have to say on the issue.
Our goal in Iraq is to train 195,000 police and 130,000 military. We've only trained 135,000 police and 115,000 military forces. What the hell is taking so long? I've said it many times here, in the United States we can train someone for combat or duty as a police officer in a matter of months. After three years in Iraq, shouldn't we have already trained those security personnel? I don't get it.
Anyway, to my regular readers, I will try to update the site more frequently. Since I'm taking Political Science 202 I should have plenty to talk about, I hope. Thanks for your patience.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
From the Associated Press (via MSNBC):
"WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.
The filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also describes Cheney’s involvement in I. Lewis Libby’s communications with the press.
There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame’s CIA identity. But it points to Cheney as one of the originators of the idea that Plame could be used to discredit her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson."
You can read the full story via the above link.
No surprises here, if true. The Bush administration is one of the most incompetent and corrupt administrations in recent history. We know the administration intended on going to war with Iraq months before the WMD argument was brought up. Bush has created massive budget deficits, spending hundreds of billions in the war in Iraq, while our troops continue to die because Iraqi security and military forces remain untrained. Add to that our seeming inability (or unwillingness) to capture Osama Bin Laden and an Executive branch of government that thinks it isn't subject to constitutional checks and balances and you have a recipe for disaster. Since Bush took office the number of people living in poverty has risen by 5.4% and the number of people without health insurance increased by 6%.
Right-wingers think liberals have nothing but hate for President Bush. That's not entirely true. Sure, there is some hate. But I think most of us would see we don't approve of the direction Bush and his team have taken this country, and we're not happy about it. Several recent polls show that the majority of Americans feel this way.
I think Republicans are in for a big surprise come November, when they discover they no longer hold the majority in the House. Polls have indicated the public would vote for a Democrat over a Republican if the elections were held now. It's possible we'll see a Democrat takeover of the House, much like the Republican revolution of the early 1990s. Wouldn't that be nice?
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
In a surprise announcement, White House Chief of Staff Andy Card has stepped down. He'll be replaced by budget director Joshua Bolten. Bush made the announcement March 28. No reason was given for Card's resignation, although some are speculating that the resignation is an effort to shake up the current White House staff and perhaps bolster Bush's super-low approval ratings. Interestingly enough, according to the Associated Press, Card gave a speech on March 27, the night before Bush announced Card's resignation, a speech in which he did not mention resigning his position.
From the AP:
"'When I heard this morning, (about the resignation) I said 'What?' Scott Owens, executive director of the Butler County GOP, said Tuesday. Card spoke to more than 600 people Monday night at the party's Lincoln Day dinner at the convention center in this Cincinnati suburb.
Owens said gave no indication of his resignation, which Bush said Tuesday he accepted over the weekend."
Now, on to the immigration issue. Or, rather the illegal immigration issue. Surprisingly, I find myself in support of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved legislation that clears the way for millions of undocumented workers to continue working in America and seek citizenship. The Senate also voted to strip out a house provision that would make it a felony to be in the United States illegally. The full Senate is expected to begin debate on the issue today (March 28).
I expect some right-wingers are fuming right now, as they'd like nothing more than to just deport the whole lot of illegal immigrants back to their countries of origin. Which makes no sense, really. Let's face it, illegal workers perform jobs that no one here legally would want to do. Some people argue that illegal workers take jobs away from the middle class, but I find that hard to believe. How many middle-class people are clamoring for jobs in custodial services, fast food, picking berries, or other forms of manual, unskilled labor? Sure, I'll bet there are some people who do not get the jobs because of the illegal immigrants, but I'd expect that number to be low.
The opponents to guest worker programs also say that illegal immigrants use up a lot of taxpayer dollars in social services. Well, they can only use those services if they have valid social security cards. Which leaves the use of emergency rooms for medical care and the children of illegals attending U.S. schools. Of course, what the opponents neglect to mention is that illegal workers do pay into the U.S. tax system, through payroll taxes, which cover Medicare and Social Security, to the tune of $7 billion a year. This is money the illegal immigrant will not get back, since they are unlikely (now) to become citizens and take advantage of retirement programs. Illegal workers are contributing to the local economy as well. So why get rid of them? Thankfully President Bush and the Senate Judiciary Committee recognize the contributions of illegal workers and are taking steps to allow them to continue to work in the U.S., all the while certain right-wing nutters are seething in anger over this turn of events. Good for them. Let them stew.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
George W. Bush, stung from embarrassingly low poll numbers, is out in a media blitz to sell the American people on his war in Iraq. I suspect people are not buying it. In his speeches he talks about how Iraq isn't in a civil war (despite claims to the contrary by Iraq's interim prime minister...what the hell does he know about his country, anyway?) and now is saying troops will not be coming home until 2009. Bush doesn't want to set a timetable for troops withdrawal because it will encourage insurgents. You know, the insurgents seem to be doing their thing without our encouragement.
Why must the Bush administration deny reality? It's obvious that Iraq is in a civil war, or at least fast approaching one. But W. has a very different world-view and seems to think things are just peachy in Iraq. I wonder if he knows that Baghdad gets only four hours of electricity a day, or that it's not uncommon for people to wait 12 hours in a queue for gas. Isn't that mindbogling? Iraq produces tons of oil, yet its own citizens have to wait half a day in the broiling heat to get gasoline. While risking their lives to do so.
So, we'll get another couple years of a couple thousand flag-draped coffins coming home, and thousands of healthy young men will find themselves amputees, brain damaged, or blind, all thanks to George W. Bush. I've even heard some Iraqis say that things were better under Saddam Hussein, that as long as they didn't cause trouble, life was okay. It's pretty bad when the people you've liberated pine for the days when they lived under the hand of a brutal dictator. Then again, trading in a brutal dictator for insurgents who like to blow people up daily doesn't seem like a good trade-off. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if we in the United States can train our military and police forces in the space of a few months to do their jobs, why can't we do the same thing in Iraq?
Oh, and just as an aside, but has anyone seen Osama Bin Laden lately? It'd be nice to put behind bars the man responsible for the attacks of 9/11. I wonder why we don't make his capture a priority? No reason, probably.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
All content
