Already - Three Promises Broken (at the very least)

A slightly expanded version of the following for clips is included at the end of this post.

----------

Obama airstrikes kill 22 in Pakistan The Sunday London Times, January 25, 2009

US pours cold water over hopes of Iran deal The London Times, January 30, 2009

In America, Speaking the Truth is a Career-Ending Event Counterpunch, January 26, 2009

Leaving Iraq? Not On Your Life

CounterPunch, January 23, 2009

----------

I Told You So Palitone Press, January 25-30, 2009 For those of us who stand outside the pathetic sham that is American two-party politics and study it objectively, the future under the faux intellectual, Barack Obama, and his cabinet of warmongers is ENTIRELY predictable (almost as if we are reading directly from "the establishment's" game plan — which, basically, we are). But trying to point this out to Americans who unquestioningly believe in that sham is like trying to talk sense to members of a cult who are excessively arrogant and self-righteous due to their cult's long history and almost universal acceptance. The first time you try to convince members of this cult to, at the very least, investigate objectively all cult leaders — including their favorite ones — in order to discover that they are all frauds, the "cultists" look at you with smiles (or frowns) of supreme condescension, as if you are either a harmless, but deluded, blasphemer or a potential nuisance. If you continue to try to convince them, they will become annoyed and ignore you. If you persist beyond that, they will become openly hostile and shut you out completely. No amount of rational debate or proof is going to convince them to doubt their favorite leaders or their own deeply ingrained, highly partisan perceptions of reality. To them, the phrase, "open-minded, scholarly investigation," is just a trick to get them to read the "loony, biased opinions of deluded fringe groups." "Luckily," the newest cult leader (Obama) has already started to break his promises to his devoted cultists (even if they refuse to see it), as we tried to tell them he would. Severe disillusionment among his followers is predicted for the not-too-distant future. This I welcome, as disillusionment often leads to a recognition, once and for all, that American two-party politics is, indeed, a sham — a sinister sham. Update: According to the January 26, 2009, edition of the London Daily Mail, Fifteen percent of Americans appear to have become disillusioned with Obama already. Contrary to what most Obama supporters may think, I think these people have given him more than a fair chance. He just blew it in record time. However, I realize that he has promises to keep to the sleazy establishment that put him in the presidency. Making promises to them is like making promises to the Mafia. You break them at your own risk. That is the sham that is two-party politics. P.S. Of course, it is always possible (actually, highly probable) that millions of liberals will either deny, ignore and/or justify Obama's broken promises throughout his entire presidency, just as millions of fanatical conservatives continued to deny, ignore and/or justify Bush's actions throughout his entire presidency. As always, in such cases, the permanent beneficiary is our massive, increasingly Orwellian federal government, that continues to function like clockwork, regardless of party.

----------

Expanded version of the above four titles/links:

Obama airstrikes kill 22 in Pakistan The Sunday London Times, January 25, 2009 Islamabad is the first to get a taste of the president’s ‘tough love’ policy. ... The airstrikes were authorised under a covert programme approved by Obama, according to a senior US official.

----------

US pours cold water over hopes of Iran deal The London Times, January 30, 2009 The White House warned Iran last night that military action is still one of its options despite the "hand of friendship" offered by President Obama.

----------

In America, Speaking the Truth is a Career-Ending Event Counterpunch, January 26, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts The Bush regime was a lawless regime. This makes it difficult for the Obama regime to be a lawful one. A torture inquiry would lead naturally into a war crimes inquiry. General Taguba said that the Bush regime committed war crimes. President Obama was a war criminal by his third day in office when he ordered illegal cross-border drone attacks on Pakistan that murdered 20 people, including 3 children. The bombing and strafing of homes and villages in Afghanistan by US forces and America's NATO puppets are also war crimes. Obama cannot enforce the law, because he himself has already violated it.

----------

Leaving Iraq? Not On Your Life

CounterPunch, January 23, 2009 By Ron Jacobs (retitled by MW of Palitone Press) ...Since he was elected, Mr. Obama has hedged on this promise [to bring the troops home from Iraq]. Since he was inaugurated, the Pentagon and its civilian boss, Robert Gates, have hedged even more. Now, they insist, US troops should remain. ... Even if Barack Obama overrides the Pentagon and Mr. Gates ... there will still be around fifty thousand US troops in Iraq. This is because Obama's call to bring all troops home from Iraq that began his campaign somehow morphed into a call to bring home only those troops determined to be "combat troops."

----------

Solar Revolution

I've been a strong (actually, fanatical) proponent of alternative energies since I was a kid, not only because they save the environment (which was once my main reason), but also because they have the potential to put the all-powerful, mafia-like oil companies out of business, once and for all.* Therefore, I love short articles like this one, which was just published today:

The Solar Revolution and the End of Big Energy by Joe Schembrie Is Big Government necessary for Big Energy? The zealots of Big Energy claim that if we wish to keep the lights from going out, we must accept mammoth public utilities, mandatory conservation measures, and even imperialist military conflicts. We are told that to receive more electrical power, we must surrender more personal freedom. Contrary to the politicians, however, the reality is that we are in the midst of a Solar Revolution, in which the free market is answering our energy needs through technological improvements in photovoltaic solar panels. With investments made on a local and household basis, solar panels offer a personalized form of energy that is independent of Big Government. Yet the ideologues of Big Energy won't give up, and are fighting against the Solar Revolution by resorting to demagogic propaganda. One of their most common lies, for example, is that sunlight is "too dilute" – implying that even if we covered the entire Earth with solar panels we would still not capture enough sunlight to power our civilization. But let's run the numbers, shall we? -- [Click here to read the remaining ten paragraphs.]

Bonus link: I also present to you this amazing and inspiring documentary from the late 1990s: Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point. The production quality may make it seem a little dated, but don't let that fool you. The many examples of almost science-fiction-like free energy (but which already exist!) are what count, not the production values.

Footnote: *Abundant alternative energies would also mean the end of unjust, criminal wars -- at least as far as oil goes, that is. I'm sure the military contractors who control our government would find other excuses to demonize, then invade and, finally, rob tiny countries that pose no threat to our security as an independent nation (as President Eisenhower tried to warn us in 1961 -- 2.5 minutes long).

Very, Very, Very Brief...

Scary:

As I said...

Ditto...

If the Rest of America Votes the Way Iowa & New Hampshire Did...

...in both the republican and democratic primaries... Ummm...

Well, these four simple sentences sum up my feelings very nicely.

And those intentionally hackable voting machines (10-minute video) will only continue to make matters worse. Here is an eloquently written, incredibly powerful and very revealing commentary by Ms. Devvy Kidd, just published today (1/10/08). Ignore the title. The commentary is much more general than the title suggests. I strongly urge (nay, beg) you to read it. If you don't have time to read both her commentary and mine, then skip mine and read hers.

As for the promised "answer" to my Square-Peg-in-a-Round-Hole Survey entry, it can be found among this group of (ultra-liberal?) San Francisco Democrats.

[Note 1: Just so my two regular readers know, none of the criticisms in this entry (most of which I wrote on January 9) are aimed at them. That would certainly be a foolish move on my part. My criticisms are aimed at the majority of Americans in general. If my two regular readers tend to feel criticized at any point, I can assure them that it is only as a result of "collateral damage" and not intentional targeting. Ha.]

[Note 2: I guess I had a lot to say because this entry grew really long, and I have failed to find very much deletable material. I hate it when I cannot stop writing, because I know most people don't like reading long entries of this sort. Even if they try to read all of it, their brains start to tune out after a few paragraphs. The same is true of me. Nonetheless...]

Political Versus Non-Political
I shall try to return to writing only non-political entries in this non-political blog, but I may fail. Why? Because in writing non-political entries, I cannot help but feel like a resident on one of the many lesser Philippine Islands just after the start of World War II. My island has not yet been invaded by the enemy, but that is only because there are so many islands to invade, and the enemy cannot invade them all at once. In the meantime, and in spite of the overwhelming evidence, most of my neighbors are living in denial, refusing to believe that our island will be invaded. They refuse to listen to my "doom-and-gloom" warnings. "So," I ask myself, "Should I listen to them? Should I try to relax and enjoy myself and pretend that our little island paradise is not going to be taken over by evil people in the not-too-distant future?"

I've always been really terrible at living in denial. I've also always been really terrible at NOT being eternally vigilant ("The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson; "This isn't just another ho-hum, rah-rah election, and we cannot treat it as such." -- Devvy Kidd).

Abrupt Change of Analogies
I don't mean to imply that Americans will soon be living in a nightmare reality straight out of a science-fiction movie. I get tired of people always assuming that's the sort of scenario we "doom-and-gloomers" (aka "realists") are predicting (although this science-fiction masterpiece is truly an allegory for our times). Tyranny is seldom as omnipresent as it is in the movies (Hollywood has really warped our perceptions of reality). Billions of people have lived perfectly quiet, peaceful, productive, and even happy lives in such totalitarian regimes as China, Vietnam, Laos, the former Yugoslavia, the former communist Poland, Uganda, Iraq (prior to 2003), Argentina, Chile, etc., etc. That means that many, if not most, Americans could easily live pleasant, and even happy, lives under those same governmental conditions. I mean, if all we really care about is work and sports and buying imported junk at Wal-Mart and watching TV and partying, then...? Who gives a flying [expletive] if a few extra Americans are spied on and arrested for crimes that shouldn't be crimes? Who cares if the United States will become part of the North American Union without public or congressional approval? Who gives a flying [expletive] if we are all required to carry National ID Cards to PROVE our innocence whenever we are randomly challenged by high-school educated, control-freak law-enforcement officers? [Just today, 1/10/08, a disgustingly ignorant (i.e. dumbass) neo-con editor in the local daily rag strongly endorsed the National ID Card and told us to grow up and accept it.] Get this straight: I don't want to live the type of quiet, peaceful life that people live in totalitarian countries, even if it is a Norman Rockwell-ized and/or Hustler-ized American version

Stop Dreaming
And please don't delude yourselves into thinking that a democratic president is going to restore our lost rights if she (or maybe he) is "elected" later this year, because that isn't going to happen. They are just as bought-and-paid for as the republicans (except one). Sure, it took semi-civilized republican thugs in the Bush Administration to grab unconstitutional powers in a series of brazenly hostile moves, but in January 2009, the much too civilized democrats will gladly (quietly) hang onto those unwarranted powers once they get hold of them. And the troops will definitely remain PERMANENTLY in Iraq on those fourteen PERMANENT U.S. bases.

And most Americans either don't see it or don't believe it, or else they don't care, which leads me to write about...

Some Very Intellectual "Hippies" of the Eighteenth-Century
Our Founding Fathers started an incredibly unique experiment on the North American continent 221 years ago (although at least one of them had a feeling that apathetic, unappreciative and easily misled Americans would eventually neglect that "experiment," or find it impractical or contrary to their needs, and thus abandon or lose it; and he was right). The Founding Fathers were idealistic dreamers, the kind who, if they were alive today, would be scoffed at by the American public and demonized by the corporate media. These Founding Fathers were somehow presented with a one-in-a-billion opportunity to set up a government unlike any the world had ever seen before. The odds that such a rare bunch of theoreticians would find one another in this vast world, much less get the chance to conspire together like a bunch of naively idealistic college students, is, well... That's the sort of story that should rightfully be considered science fiction, because the odds against it happening were astronomical. Even the vast majority of average Americans in the 18th century would probably have set up a theocratic government if they had gotten their way. Thank God those few idealistic (Deistic) dreamers got their way instead, against all odds.

The Constitution: Death by a Thousand Cuts
The problem is that there were a lot of powerful, greedy Americans (and even British) in the 18th century who had no intention of rolling over and dying just because those few dreamers had gotten their way (this is a fact that contradicts the simplistic, patriotic crap we all learned in school). Powerful, greedy people were just as much the norm then as they are today. The idealistic dreamers were the aberrations (literally). The powerful people didn't see the newly adopted Constitution as some sort of sacred document. To them, it was nothing more than an impetuous, even blasphemous, limitation on the powers they had "rightfully" enjoyed for millennia. They and their idealogical descendants have been trying to dismantle it bit by bit ever since, and they have been wildly successful, especially since 1913.

What Woke Me Up?
I used to be a staunch "Mainstreamer." In other words, I usually argued with those eternally angry, cynical Americans who were always trying to warn me that there isn't a whit of difference between the democrats and the republicans. I also scoffed (usually silently, since I'm a polite sort) at the "kooks and nuts" who were telling me that there are certain sinister elements within our government and corporate power centers and that they have "agendas." That isn't to say that I scoffed at every conspiracy theory the way far too many people do (I have common sense and a degree in history, after all). I've always believed there was an organized government plot to kill John F. Kennedy. I've also long believed there are some very bad elements within the CIA, but for a long time I didn't think the organized corruption extended much beyond that agency.

So, when did my resistance to the idea of taking a peek at those "kooky" claims first begin to weaken ever so slightly? That's easy. The George W. Bush presidential campaign and its accomplices on the Supreme Court stole the presidency in 2001. I saw that theft VERY CLEARLY with my own eyes while it was happening, so I didn't have to be awakened to it afterwards; nonetheless, I eventually learned the intricate mechanics behind that brazen theft (thus ended my lifelong admiration for the Supreme Court, to put it VERY mildly). What was equally as shocking to me was the fact that the mainstream media stood by and pretended the theft had not taken place! In fact, that [expletive] loser Tim Russert actually had the nerve to tell us all to accept it and move on.

After that theft, I watched as the blatantly obvious lies and the corresponding loss of our constitutional freedoms accelerated at a rapid pace.

Furthermore, I knew -- with every ounce of my intellect and common sense -- that the Bush Administration and the mainstream media were blatantly lying about Iraq long before we invaded Iraq. I screamed all of my common-sense refutations against those lies at my TV screen for many months before and after the invasion. Much to my... what? -- "Pleasure"? "Displeasure"? "Sadness"? -- every claim I had made about Iraq and our reasons for going in -- AND NEVER LEAVING* -- turned out to be 100 percent accurate.

Throughout all of it, I was aghast that even the most reputable journalists, whom I had once admired, were suddenly lying so blatantly and so obviously that even I could see it without doing any official fact checking whatsoever (as of 2003, it still hadn't occurred to me that I could do political fact checking on the internet; can you believe it? I didn't know that many honest journalists and truth-seeking citizens had fled to the freedom of the internet). It was obvious that something very unhealthy was afoot in our nation, so when I finally found myself with lots of time to do the research, I jumped in. It wasn't long before I discovered the real value of the internet.

The Irreplaceable Internet
After living most of my adult life with a "mainstreamer" attitude and a corresponding disdain for those conspiracy theories that sounded too unrealistic or too paranoid to be true (yes, there are a few of them), I had a weak moment about two or three years ago. As I sat there in front of my computer, steaming mad about yet another treasonous Bush/Cheney crime and subsequent media denial of that crime, I thought to myself, "Aw, what's the harm? I'll just take a peak at one of the more intriguing kooky claims on the internet and see what all the fuss is about." I told myself I would take a shower as soon as I was done in order to wash off any potentially communicable mental diseases.

Imagine my shock when I discovered that their evidence and proof is incredibly solid, and the vast majority of them are anything but kooks and nuts. "Wow!" I thought. "If our government and the media are lying about that, then what else are they lying about?" So I clicked on the links and took a peak at a few other closely related theories and saw even more highly reputable people making equally reputable claims.

At that point, for me, there was no longer any possibility of unlearning what I had learned. I've always been a radical supporter of the Constitution, even as a kid (in fact, I wrote a "Declaration of Independent Kids of America" when I was in fifth grade), and so I wasn't about to remain silent in the face of all that information. I just didn't realize how stubbornly close-minded most Americans, even my closest friends, would be when I approached them with this sort of information. So I slowed down a little. I thought, "If I approach them carefully and rationally and explain that I was once just like they are, then maybe they will be more willing to listen."

Nope. Not true.

The corporate media has done too good a job of lumping legitimate theories (that would send powerful people to prison if pursued) in with crazy theories.

-----

* Long before the invasion began, I knew with all my heart that we had no intention of leaving, no matter what they were telling us.

The Square-Peg-in-a-Round-Hole Survey

Greetings

Yes, shock of shocks. I am back amongst you, at least for now. You are probably wondering what compelled me to come out of "hiding," especially when I said I wasn't going to write here again for the foreseeable future. I'll explain my reemergence in my next entry. In the meantime, I shall start setting you up for that entry by writing this one.

My two or three regular readers (whom I’ll probably have to round up as long-lost strays since they probably think I have long since abandoned them), may not consider this entry to be their usual cup of tea. Nonetheless, I hope they will read all of it anyway, without skipping or skimming. I don’t have millions of regular readers, or even five, so I am basically writing it only for them (besides, who but they would bother to slog through this long, slightly off-topic intro?).

Cryptic Warning

I shall not be entirely forthcoming in this entry (actually, as the title states, it’s a survey). If I were to be forthcoming, I would ruin my reason for writing it. I shall also present it as a "what-if" scenario, even though "what-if" is not exactly appropriate in this particular case. I am doing so simply because, in spite of racking my brains, I cannot think of a "trickier" way to present the information

The Run Up to This Entry

A while back, I was poking around on the internet and found a few interesting (some might say "radical") quotes by a character who would probably be run out of most modern "conservative" communities (which means he and I would get along swimmingly ;-). In many ways, this character (who shall remain nameless in this entry) reminds me of one of my greatest heroes, Mahatma Gandhi (you may agree with me when you read the first four quotes below). In many other ways, he reminds me of myself. Some of his more -- seemingly -- "unrealistic" beliefs are identical to my own, down to the very words he uses to explain those beliefs. I thought I was one of the few people left in the United States who still adheres to such beliefs. I certainly didn't imagine that someone who has climbed the ladder of (relative) success -- as this man has done -- could have done so while continually making his "unrealistic" beliefs abundantly clear to the many conservative people around him. Yet that is what he did, and I think he even convinced many of them to agree with him. I, on the other hand, have been shouted down and ridiculed most of my life by most of my conservative friends whenever I stated these same supposedly "unrealistic" ideas.

But What If...

Trust me. There is a lot more substance to this "what-if" than you might imagine. It is definitely not a pointless, time-wasting "what-if," even though, by its very "what-if" premise, it may seem so. It is well worth your time to read on.

As I was reading this man's quotes, a "what-if" scenario suddenly occurred to me: What if he were to run for president of the United States? Would he stand a chance? Would he be able to attract even a small number of Americans to his supposedly "unrealistic" beliefs? Robert F. Kennedy (in 1968) is probably the last person to have run for office who might be similar to this man, at least in some ways. He is, without a doubt, totally unlike ALL of the bought-and-paid-for "top-tier" candidates who are presently running for president IN EITHER PARTY. He is totally unlike most of the minor candidates, too. In fact, if he had been born in a different generation and under different circumstances, I think he might have been perfectly at home in the hippie culture of the late 1960s (see if you agree with me when you read his quotes, especially the last one, which is something I’ve said with great enthusiasm and conviction since I was a kid).

"If" he were to run, how would the corporate media treat him? Would they ignore him and/or ridicule him, or blatantly lie about him, as they have so infamously done to so many non-traditional presidential candidates in the past? If this man were to run for president, and if his beliefs were reported IN CONTEXT and IN THEIR ENTIRETY (something the agenda-driven, corporate "mainstream" media is usually loathe to do, especially if they don't like a particular candidate, which is a crime, since they don’t own the public airwaves), how would the American public receive him? Would he appeal more to liberals and independents or more to independents and conservatives? Or to elements of all three? That may seem like a dumb question in light of what I've already written, but he simply doesn't fit very well into the ridiculously fictional left-right divide that most Americans have been thoroughly fooled into thinking exists.

Instructions

Please answer the following questions with a simple "Yes" or "No" or "Agree" or "Disagree" (or "Don't Know"). You are welcome to answer them in your head or on paper or however you may prefer. There is no need and no way for the computer to tally your answers. These questions and your answers are for your own benefit, not mine -- although I would enjoy knowing how you answered in an overall manner (mostly with "Yes" and "Agree," or a mix, or mostly with "No" and "Disagree"?).

I especially want you to decide if the man appears to be: A.) more of a mainstream liberal, B.) more of a radical liberal, C.) mostly independent, or D.) something else entirely.

 Even if you figure out my little "game" right away, I hope you will keep reading anyway.

Disclaimer

I do not claim to be a good "survey" writer, at least not when I have a particular goal in mind. While the man’s quotations are nearly perfectly worded, the questions that I wrote in my own words are very simplistic (in the truest sense of that word); however, they weren't devised to win any contests for complexity or professionalism. Obviously, the statements in quotation marks are his.

-----

The Survey

1.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence."

2.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state..., even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals."

3.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."

4.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "Legal issues aside, the American people and government should never abide the use of torture by our military or intelligence agencies. A decent society never accepts or justifies torture. It dehumanizes both torturer and victim yet seldom produces reliable intelligence."

5.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "I believe our troops should be brought back to the United States without delay." He goes on to say that he means the process of returning home should begin without further delay, but it should then proceed at a safe and realistic rate of speed.

6.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our Armed Forces. But this is pure demagoguery, and it is intellectually dishonest... Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon."

7.) Do you agree that the U.S. government should stop threatening such tiny countries as Iran, Pakistan and Syria, countries that could not possibly threaten our freedoms or national security, even if they tried as a combined force?

8.) Ideally speaking, would you be in favor of withdrawing American military forces from all countries around the world, thus saving billions or even trillions of dollars a year and earning the immediate respect of the other nations of the world?

9.) Do you believe that continual U.S. military aggression (and mere presence) around the world makes us less secure because it invites hostility toward us?

10.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "When one person [the president] can initiate war, by its definition, a republic no longer exists."

11.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new 'preemptive first-strike' doctrine."

12.) Do you agree or disagree with the following answer to the following question? -- Question: "What is the most pressing moral issue in the United States right now?" -- Answer: "I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that's part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the 'just war' theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we're not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security. I mean, we have to come to our senses about this issue of war and preemption and go back to traditions and our constitution and defend our liberties and defend our rights, but not to think that we can change the world by force of arms and to start wars....

13.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "The argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now, Iraq will be left in a mess, implying the implausible, that if we stay it won't be a mess. Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed, and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We've had enough of both."

14.) Are you opposed to the United States becoming a police state, even in the name of "protecting the citizens"?

15.) Are you in favor of a president who would nominate judges for the Supreme Court who would promote and protect citizen's constitutional rights instead of further empowering an ever more dictatorial executive branch?

16.) Do you favor the return of habeas corpus (the right to know why you have been arrested and the right to an attorney, among other things)?

17.) Do you believe in repealing the Patriot Act, which abolishes a number of our constitutional freedoms?

18.) Do you believe in repealing the Military Commissions Act, which allows the president and other law-enforcement figures, at their whim, to declare U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, thus depriving them of all of their constitutional rights?

19.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "America was founded by men who understood that the threat of domestic [government] tyranny is as great as any threat from abroad. If we want to be worthy of their legacy, we must resist the rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society. Otherwise, our own government will become a greater threat to our freedoms than any foreign terrorist."

20.) Do you believe in protecting the rights / civil rights of every individual, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, ethnicity, etc.?

21.) Are you in favor of putting an end to "corporate welfare" and other policies promoted by corporate lobbyists and enacted by congress and the president, "welfare" that enriches the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower classes?

22.) Are you in favor of reigning in or eliminating federal agencies (and even private agencies masquerading as federal agencies) that abuse their positions of authority and infringe upon our individual rights?

23.) Are you in favor of severely limiting the unchecked power of the CIA in order to put an end to the evil deeds they have been committing around the world (and possibly in our own country) for the past sixty years?

24.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card."

25.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "Monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers."

26.) Are you in favor of decriminalizing medical marijuana?

27.) Are you in favor of decriminalizing marijuana altogether?

28.) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let's just get rid of all the drug laws."

29.) Are you in favor of a president who says the following? -- "I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it. If you're poor, and you're from the inner city, you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted; and today with the DNA evidence [we've seen that] there's been too many mistakes [made], so I am now opposed to the federal death penalty."

30.) Do you agree with any elected official who would vote against a federal law banning same-sex marriage?

31.) Do you agree with any elected official who would vote against a federal law banning abortion?

32.) Theoretically speaking, do you agree or disagree with the following statement? -- "Justifying conscription [military draft] to promote the cause of liberty is one of the most bizarre notions ever conceived by man! Forced servitude, with the risk of death and serious injury as a price to live free, makes no sense. What right does anyone have to sacrifice the lives of others for some cause of questionable value? Even if well motivated it can’t justify using force on uninterested persons. It’s said that the 18-year-old owes it to his country. Hogwash! It just as easily could be argued that a 50-year-old chickenhawk, who promotes war and places the danger on innocent young people, owes a heck of a lot more to the country than the 18-year-old being denied his liberty for a cause that has no justification."

In Conclusion, I Repeat...

Does this man appear to be: A.) more of a mainstream liberal, B.) more of a radical liberal, C.) mostly independent, or D.) something else entirely.

P.S.

If you've guessed the identity of this person, please, for the sake of anyone else who "takes" this survey, don't reveal his name in your comments.

Christmas Spirit: Why Temporary?

Time: Christmas 1914, ninety years ago today.
Place: The Front Lines in France and Belgium.
The Situation: A general Christmas truce that temporarily halts the carnage of World War I.
Analogous To: Modern western society, peacetime (not counting Iraq)
Fact or Fiction: Fact

By the time Christmas Day arrived in 1914, British and German soldiers had been battling for several months. Hundreds of thousands had already been lost on both sides. In order to celebrate Christmas, leaders on both sides agreed to a temporary truce. British soldiers hoped (at the very most) to spend a much-needed quiet day in their trenches. Large numbers of German soldiers all along the front lines had a different idea.

At various locations that day, British soldiers could hear the German soldiers singing Christmas carols. On Christmas morning, the British peeked out of their trenches and were stunned to see small groups of unarmed German soldiers standing on top of their own trenches just staring in the direction of the British trenches. At any other time, this would have meant certain death for those German soldiers. The British thought it must be some sort of trick, but they didn't fire their weapons. The Germans began shouting at the British soldiers to come out of their trenches and celebrate Christmas with them.

They shouted, "We don't want to kill you, and you don't want to kill us. Is this not true?"

The British replied that they did, indeed, have no desire to kill the Germans either. As such, a few unarmed British soldiers went out to meet the Germans (while their compatriots who were still in the trenches covered them, just in case). As the British approached, they were amazed to see Christmas trees and other decorations in the German trenches. After general introductions, the Germans offered whatever they had as gifts to the British. The British returned the favor. In one location, the Germans even offered a large keg of beer to the British, saying that they had plenty more where that came from. The British gladly accepted the gift.

At another point on the front lines, a British officer was returning from headquarters and was surprised to find none of his soldiers in the trenches. Everywhere he went, he found no one. The place was abandoned. After a while, he could hear people singing Christmas carols, some in English, others in German. He eventually found all of his men in the "no-man's land" between the opposing trenches, singing and sharing food, etc., with all of the German soldiers. At another point along the line, the Germans and British even played a soccer (football) match, which the Germans won 3-2.

If not for selfish, arrogant leaders on both sides, peace could have broken out permanently that day in a large part of Europe due to this wonderful display of Christmas spirit. The men on both sides had proven that there was no need for fighting such a terrible war.

But there were selfish, arrogant leaders, and so the men on both sides knew that the peace must come to an end at a specified time. Therefore, at midnight on the night of December 25, or 8:30 AM on December 26 (depending on where you were on the battle line), officers on both sides, shook hands and saluted to one another. They then returned to their own trenches and fired two or three signal shots into the air, thus signifying that the magical peace had come to an end.

Makes You Wonder
These German and British soldiers were convinced that they had no choice but to follow orders and return to the act of killing one another (for reasons that none of them really understood). If left to their own devices, they would gladly have signed an armistice on the spot that day allowing them to celebrate a permanent peace with one another. Instead, millions more men on both sides were yet to be killed (probably some of them by the very men with whom they had just celebrated) before the actual armistice was signed almost four years later, on November 11, 1918.

What About "Us"?
What is our excuse in this day and age? None of us is required to return to our cold, unfriendly ways as soon as Christmas ends. So why do we? Or, asked in reverse, why do we choose to let ourselves feel a certain warmth and generosity toward our fellow man (excepting a few psychotic Arab terrorists) for just a few weeks every year? Then, the rest of the year, we don't give a second thought to snubbing any and all passers-by, or even those people who appear to be going out of their way to be nice to us? I have spent my life trying to be nice every day of the year, but I'm not perfect, and I'm definitely outnumbered.