AzLeavitts

The Mix, Agrarian & Technology Societies

2006-04-25T08:37:00.000-07:00

I've done some googling on the Internet and am unable to find any real information regarding a modern experiment that blends modern technology with agrarian principals. I'm thinking about this because from what I'm seeing in the modern world there really isn't a truly healthy society. By healthy I'm referring to the overall mental health and stability of a given nation's population at large. I'm not so naive as to believe humanity in its current state could produce a Utopian society. But, what the world is currently dealing with is NOT working.

Agrarian societies by their very nature keep growth slow, keep prosperity relatively level and are self sustaining. So I'm wondering if a formula for a community based on liberal, matriarchal, agrarian and technology elements could create a healthy working society. One that ensures religion is a personal perspective and government is there to serve. A government that is checked and double checked for efficiency. A government where a representative's constituents have a real voice and greedy self interests are frowned upon. If it doesn't help the community/society at large then what's the point.

I'm not talking about communism or even socialism. There is nothing wrong with a free market just so long as that market is constrained in such a way as to foster a more healthy overall community. There is nothing wrong with wealth, just so long as the means in which it was achieved didn't require taking advantage of fellow citizens. Membership with in this society would be purely voluntary and if a person no longer felt a desire to participate then they would be free to leave. Leaving with what they came into the community with. If the brought nothing they leave with nothing, if they arrive wealthy they leave wealthy.

I wonder if there are any other people out there who have been thinking along these lines? I believe this merits some real consideration and would like to start a running dialog with anyone interested in contributing.

AzLeavitts

2006-03-31T09:58:00.000-08:00

AzLeavitts

Jenny

2006-03-24T09:34:00.000-08:00

Its been a long time...

2005-06-20T16:40:00.000-07:00

Okay so I've been a bit preoccupied of late. I just can not believe how badly the Main Stream Media has dropped the ball on the Downing Street Minutes. And to watch the bought and sold media down play the importance of the document. Its disgusting!

An Email Thread between the Mikes...

2005-02-21T07:11:00.000-08:00

The owners sent that here from home. Not to me specifically but to
all of us. I am offended and may tell them so. To be so naive as
believe that a so-called god would punish non-believers is too live
in absolute fear. I pity someone that would be so afraid to question
their faith as to believe they will be stuck down for doing so. Have
an unclean thought?-best be careful next time you step off the
curb, god may have a bus with your name on it. So better to go
through life with this artificial smile plastered on your face
repeatedly proclaiming "God is great!", repressing even the
slightest inkling that shit happens in this world purely by chance
and you are in control of your own destiny less you keel over in
your pasta tonight of a god-given massive myocardial-infarction for
even daring to have an independent thought!

So I wonder, is this what the leader of the greatest country in the
world thinks about the tsunami? He has been described as, a
"god-fearing" man.

===================================================
=========
From: Michael .com>
Date: 2005/02/21 Mon AM 09:00:08 EST
To: .net
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fw: Quite A Story mw]

Jeeeeezus kryst!!!!

who the hell sent you that piece of shit? So far I have dropped two
of my
long time friendships because they tried that kind of crap! Don't
get me
wrong I'm NOT telling you this is what you need to do. I just hate it
when
people know your philosophical inclination and yet they
continually try to
save your soul anyway!

On Monday 21 February 2005 06:52 am, Mike Renz wrote:
> This was forwarded to my work. The moral of the story is: God
> loves all men...except muslims, apparently. The fact that
someone
> would use something as tragic as the loss of life sustained in the
> recent tsunami to promote christianity is appalling!
>
> M.
> ==================================================
=
> =========
> From: .com>
> Date: 2005/02/21 Mon AM 08:50:35 EST
> To: "Mich>
> Subject: Fw: Quite A Story mw
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: G
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 6:05 AM
> Subject: Quite A Story mw
>
>
> Subject: "Quite A Story"
>
>
> QUITE A STORY, BUT NEVER GOT ON TV.
>
> Subject: FW: Tsunami Testimony
>
> God uses all things to bring glory to His Name!..........& God
> Protects
> His own!
> We know that 80% of the town of Meulaboh in Aceh was
> destroyed by the
> Tsunami waves and 80% of the people also died. This is one of
> the towns
> that was hit the hardest.
>
> But there is a fantastic testimony from Meulaboh. In that town are
> about 400 Christians.
> They wanted to celebrate Christmas on December 25th but
were
> not
> allowed to do so by the Muslims of Meulaboh. They were told if
> they wanted to
> celebrate Christmas they needed to go outside the city of
> Meulaboh on a
> high hill and there celebrate Christmas.
>
> Because the Christians desired to celebrate Christmas the 400
> believers
> left the city on December 25th and after they celebrated
Christmas
> they
> stayed overnight on the hill.
>
> As we all know the morning of December 26 there was the
> earthquake
> followed by the Tsunami waves destroying most of the city of
> Meulaboh and
> thousands were killed. The 400 believers were on the mountain
> and were
> all saved from destruction.
>
> Now the Muslims of Meulaboh are saying that the God of the
> Christians
> punished us for forbidding the Christians from celebrating
> Christmas in
> the city. Others are questioning why so many Muslims died while
> not even one
> of the Christians died there.
>
> Had the Christians insisted on their rights to celebrate Christmas
in
> the city, they would have all died. But because they humbled
> themselves
> and followed the advice of the Muslims they all were spared
> destruction and
> can now testify of God's marvelous protection.
>
> This is a testimony of the grace of God and the fact that as
> believers
> we have no rights in the world. Our right is come before God and
> commit
> our lives to Him. Our right is kneeling down before the Lord
> almighty and
> commit our ways to Him. He is our Father and is very capable to
> care for
> His children.
> Praise the Name of the Lord.
>
> Bill Hekman Pastor Calvary Life Fellowship in Indonesia
>
>

Daily affirmation by Mike Renz

2005-02-15T05:15:00.000-08:00

I know we're all thinking it, but someone's gotta' say-but wouldn't Bush's requested 84 BILLION dollars, and the 87 BILLION before that have done wonders for some domestic programs here.

The Bush education program could have been better entitled "No Iraqi left behind."

I've come across a top secret copy of the Bush administration's long-term vision for the world once he's liberated it. It is posted verbatim here:

"I see trees of green, red roses too
I see them bloom for me and you
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

The colors of the rainbow so pretty in the sky
Are also on the faces of people going by
I see friends shaking hands saying how do you do
They're really saying I love you.

I hear babies crying, I watch them grow
They'll learn much more than I'll never know
And I think to myself what a wonderful world
Yes I think to myself what a wonderful world."

Somehow, I really believe he see's it something like that.

My daily rant

2005-02-14T10:33:00.000-08:00

So why is it that when ever we hear about a conservative getting caught with their hand in the proverbial "cookie jar" they always seem to be doing what they have very publicly decried or at the very least actively campaigning to stop the activity?

Why? Because they are usually a bunch of self-hating repressed individuals who have learned that this is the best way to fully realize their self-loathing.

Pathetic!

The Bush Administration lying lying hypocrisy

2005-02-14T10:23:00.000-08:00

It was just a few weeks ago that Condoleezza Rice said to Barbara Boxer "I really hope that you will not imply that I take the truth lightly." Well there's no need to imply it any more: Condoleezza Rice is a flat-out liar. It was revealed last week that the Bush administration tried to suppress a report which shows that between April and September of 2001 they were warned numerous times that terrorists were planning to commit suicide attacks in hijacked aircraft. According to the UK Independent, "The latest pages note that of the FAA's 105 daily intelligence summaries between 1 April 2001 and 10 September 2001, 52 of them mentioned Osama bin Laden, al-Qa'ida, or both. The report also concludes that officials did not expand the use of in-flight air marshals or tighten airport screening for weapons. It said FAA officials were more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays and easing air carriers' financial problems than thwarting a terrorist attack." The report also said that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable." Don't tell me though - these warnings were just historical documents. And what was it Condi Rice said just after 9/11? Ah yes: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."

THE BUSH SHOW

2005-02-12T07:24:00.000-08:00

by Michael Renz

Like Truman Burbank, the Jim Carrey character who led his life in a world created for him behind a camera, our President leads a similar life. Truman learns he's been living a lie in the end and enters the real world. The question is, is this president truly oblivious to his surroundings? Will he too walk through that door and learn his "mandate" doesn't exist? That he is not embraced by all? Or is this a world of his choosing? After all, the man doesn't read the newspaper. He gets the news that's fed to him by his "handlers."

Does he know people protest against his policies? When he makes appearances, protesters are directed to a "safe zone" where they cannot harm the president. This is done for "security reasons."
A group planning to protest President Bush at a speech at a Nebraska plastics plant will be located more than half a mile away from the president's location. The group informed the secret service of their intent to protest and were assigned their designated spot far from the president's eyes. In spite of their willingness to go through the same security required of the supportive attendees, they're required to forfeit their right to free speech or go where the president can't see you. Again I wonder if the isolation is by choice or necessity.
If you bypass permission of the secret service and position yourself where the president may actually see you, you'll be quickly arrested. Take the case of Nicole and Jeff Rank of Corpus Christi, Texas. They dared to reveal their anti-Bush T-shirts at a rally in West Virginia, where they were arrested by local authorities acting on the orders of the Secret Service. Charleston Municipal Judge Carole Bloom later dismissed the charges. Supporters, however, can get as close as they want. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that if you wished to do the president harm you need only wave a sign supporting him to get close. The secret service presumes that terrorists or assassins would naturally have anti-Bush signage.
We've all heard the story of Kerry-Edwards supporters being denied access to Bush rallies across the country last year. Is it because they party did not want disenters present or that they simply did not want their president to know there were those of differing opinions. Taking it even a step further, at a Rio Rancho, New Mexico Dick Cheney rally, procuring a ticket required signing an endorsement of the Bush/Cheney ticket! I can hear his handlers saying "look Mr. President, see how the people love you!"
At Bush's Washington town hall meeting to discuss his social security reform ideas, (in absolutely no detail) we learned that the audience was made up of "hand-picked" Bush supporters, asking some very "un-tough" questions, that had surely been scripted by his team. I wonder, is this president kept in the dark or simply afraid of confrontation?
Now we learn of journalists are being either paid or propped up by the administration in an effort to bolster the president's programs and further the president's agenda. This is an obvious attempt to covertly influence public opinion and we should be very afraid. First this administration takes away your right to free speech and follows it by subtly changing the way you hear the news. Here's how it works. The President, bent on changing social security claims that the system will be paying out more than it takes in by the year 2042. Now that the statement's been made the administration scrambles to find, establish, or even create the facts that support the claim. Once the "facts" are out there, they put some journalists on the payroll to support the ideas, or plant 'credentialed" reporters to ask the right questions in an effort to garner public support. That's the pattern emerging here, and this manipulation of the "truth" and attempts to squash those that would refute it are not the exception, but as we will soon see, the norm.
The question I keep asking myself is: Is the president aware of these goings on or does he live in a cocoon created by his handlers who create the world around him and feed him only what he needs to see and hear? Is he the ultimate puppet dictator or a man who is afraid to confront his adversaries?

From Democratic Underground "Top 10 Conservative Idiots"

2005-02-07T09:18:00.000-08:00

Of course you're all familiar with the ridiculous costs of the recent presidential inauguration - the most expensive in history - which took place in Washington a couple weeks ago (if not, see Idiots 181). The theme of the inauguration was "celebrate the troops," so lets take a look at how they were celebrated, shall we? Rebecca Lawson of West Babylon, NY, told MSNBC that her son attended the inauguration - because he was ordered to. When he got there, "He said there was no food provided for them, so they ate after the event at some fast-food restaurant ... He stayed at a local military base with the rest of the group, but they made him pay for the room." Huh. The White House spent $40 million on the inauguration, and they couldn't even feed or house the soldiers who were ordered to attend? Humbug.

I like this quote...

2005-01-31T14:57:00.000-08:00

I don't know who said this and if I did I would most certainly give them credit. But all in all it says it all.

"When historians look back at the Bush presidency, they are more likely to note that what sets him apart is not the crises he managed, but the crises he fabricated."

--unknown

So Everybody's Wondering

2005-01-31T11:08:00.000-08:00

Wondering what Bush is going to do now that there have been free elections in Iraq. Depending on which side of the isle you stand there are numerous thoughts, so here are mine.

Bush has no interest in pulling our troops out of Iraq. Why would we go to the trouble to build 14 permanent bases in the country? I believe he plans to share Democracy with Iran, Syria and any other country who stands in he way. He and his administration are bent on building the American Empire and I wouldn't doubt he plans to appoint himself as the supreme leader of the world. They have an agenda and as long as there are people on the planet who don't adhere to their beliefs they will continue to "share" Democracy with the world.

I'm certain he will consider this to be political leverage to push more of his extreme right agenda.

Leavitt's Ire

2005-01-28T09:09:00.000-08:00

I work at a software company here in Arizona where the people I work with/for seem to be predominantly "believers." Believers in religion, US foreign policy and most distressing of all George W. Bush. What has happened to the people of our country? Have they become so lazy as to allow people with an agenda diametrically opposed to their own welfare and safety to tell them what to think and believe? Have we as a country been so pacified by television media and a governmental propaganda machine that we can't even find the gumption to ask one simple question?

WHY?

Why are we in a war against a people who did not attack or even possess the means to attack us?

Why has our election process been so perverted that its become unpopular to ask for accountability?

Why has a country who's founders fled religious persecution evolved into a bully who prides itself in pushing a global political philosophy based on religion?

Why is our government conducting massive propaganda campaigns against its own people?

This list could go on for quit some time but I lack the desire to tell people what they could/should be asking of the people who govern our society.

Now its just going to be a matter of when I get to say "I TOLD YOU SO!"

Where was this voice during the elections?

2005-01-27T14:21:00.000-08:00

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 26, 2005

What If (It was all a Big Mistake)?

America’s policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the early 20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when and where to impose ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in the affairs of others? Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting-- hundreds of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian casualties, and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude that grave foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked: What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true republic’s goal of peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations? Is it not possible that Washington’s admonition to avoid entangling alliances is sound advice even today?
In medicine mistakes are made-- man is fallible. Misdiagnoses are made, incorrect treatments are given, and experimental trials of medicines are advocated. A good physician understands the imperfections in medical care, advises close follow-ups, and double-checks the diagnosis, treatment, and medication. Adjustments are made to assure the best results. But what if a doctor never checks the success or failure of a treatment, or ignores bad results and assumes his omnipotence-- refusing to concede that the initial course of treatment was a mistake? Let me assure you, the results would not be good. Litigation and the loss of reputation in the medical community place restraints on this type of bullheaded behavior.

Sadly, though, when governments, politicians, and bureaucrats make mistakes and refuse to reexamine them, there is little the victims can do to correct things. Since the bully pulpit and the media propaganda machine are instrumental in government cover-ups and deception, the final truth emerges slowly, and only after much suffering. The arrogance of some politicians, regulators, and diplomats actually causes them to become even more aggressive and more determined to prove themselves right, to prove their power is not to be messed with by never admitting a mistake. Truly, power corrupts!

The unwillingness to ever reconsider our policy of foreign intervention, despite obvious failures and shortcomings over the last 50 years, has brought great harm to our country and our liberty. Historically, financial realities are the ultimate check on nations bent on empire. Economic laws ultimately prevail over bad judgment. But tragically, the greater the wealth of a country, the longer the flawed policy lasts. We’ll probably not be any different.

We are still a wealthy nation, and our currency is still trusted by the world, yet we are vulnerable to some harsh realities about our true wealth and the burden of our future commitments. Overwhelming debt and the precarious nature of the dollar should serve to restrain our determined leaders, yet they show little concern for deficits. Rest assured, though, the limitations of our endless foreign adventurism and spending will become apparent to everyone at some point in time.

Since 9/11, a lot of energy and money have gone into efforts ostensibly designed to make us safer. Many laws have been passed and many dollars have been spent. Whether or not we’re better off is another question.
Today we occupy two countries in the Middle East. We have suffered over 20,000 casualties, and caused possibly 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq. We have spent over $200 billion in these occupations, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars here at home hoping to be safer. We’ve created the Department of Homeland Security, passed the Patriot Act, and created a new super CIA agency.

Our government now is permitted to monitor the Internet, to read our mail, to search us without proper search warrants, to develop a national ID card, and to investigate what people are reading in libraries. Ironically, illegal aliens flow into our country and qualify for driving licenses and welfare benefits with little restraint.

These issues are discussed, but nothing has been as highly visible to us as the authoritarianism we accept at the airport. The creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has intruded on the privacy of all airline travelers, and there is little evidence that we are safer for it. Driven by fear, we have succumbed to the age-old temptation to sacrifice liberty on the pretense of obtaining security. Love of security, unfortunately, all too often vanquishes love of liberty.

Unchecked fear of another 9/11-type attack constantly preoccupies our leaders and most of our citizens, and drives the legislative attack on our civil liberties. It’s frightening to see us doing to ourselves what even bin Laden never dreamed he could accomplish with his suicide bombers.

We don’t understand the difference between a vague threat of terrorism and the danger of a guerilla war. One prompts us to expand and nationalize domestic law enforcement while limiting the freedoms of all Americans. The other deals with understanding terrorists like bin Laden, who declared war against us in 1998. Not understanding the difference makes it virtually impossible to deal with the real threats. We are obsessed with passing new laws to make our country safe from a terrorist attack. This confusion about the cause of the 9/11 attacks, the fear they engendered, and the willingness to sacrifice liberty prompts many to declare their satisfaction with the inconveniences and even humiliation at our nation’s airports.

There are always those in government who are anxious to increase its power and authority over the people. Strict adherence to personal privacy annoys those who promote a centralized state.

It’s no surprise to learn that many of the new laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 had been proposed long before that date. The attacks merely provided an excuse to do many things previously proposed by dedicated statists.

All too often government acts perversely, professing to advance liberty while actually doing the opposite. Dozens of new bills passed since 9/11 promise to protect our freedoms and our security. In time we will realize there is little chance our security will be enhanced or our liberties protected.

The powerful and intrusive TSA certainly will not solve our problems. Without a full discussion, greater understanding, and ultimately a change in the foreign policy that incites those who declared war against us, no amount of pat-downs at airports will suffice. Imagine the harm done, the staggering costs, and the loss of liberty if the next 20 years pass and airplanes are never employed by terrorists. Even if there is a possibility that airplanes will be used to terrorize us, TSA’s bullying will do little to prevent it. Patting down old women and little kids in airports cannot possibly make us safer!

TSA cannot protect us from another attack and it is not the solution. It serves only to make us all more obedient and complacent toward government intrusions into our lives.

The airport mess has been compounded by other problems, which we fail to recognize. Most assume the government has the greatest responsibility for making private aircraft travel safe. But this assumption only ignores mistakes made before 9/11, when the government taught us to not resist, taught us that airline personnel could not carry guns, and that the government would be in charge of security. Airline owners became complacent and dependent upon the government.

After 9/11 we moved in the wrong direction by allowing total government control and a political takeover by the TSA-- which was completely contrary to the proposition that private owners have the ultimate responsibility to protect their customers.

Discrimination laws passed during the last 40 years ostensibly fuel the Transportation Secretary’s near obsession with avoiding the appearance of discrimination toward young Muslim males. Instead TSA seemingly targets white children and old women. We have failed to recognize that a safety policy by a private airline is quite a different thing from government agents blindly obeying anti-discrimination laws.

Governments do not have a right to use blanket discrimination, such as that which led to incarceration of Japanese Americans in World War II. However, local law-enforcement agencies should be able to target their searches if the description of a suspect is narrowed by sex, race, or religion.

We are dealing with an entirely different matter when it comes to safety on airplanes. The federal government should not be involved in local law enforcement, and has no right to discriminate. Airlines, on the other hand, should be permitted to do whatever is necessary to provide safety. Private firms-- long denied the right-- should have a right to discriminate. Fine restaurants, for example, can require that shoes and shirts be worn for service in their establishments. The logic of this remaining property right should permit more sensible security checks at airports. The airlines should be responsible for the safety of their property, and liable for it as well. This is not only the responsibility of the airlines, but it is a civil right that has long been denied them and other private companies.

The present situation requires the government to punish some by targeting those individuals who clearly offer no threat. Any airline that tries to make travel safer and happens to question a larger number of young Muslim males than the government deems appropriate can be assessed huge fines. To add insult to injury, the fines collected from airlines are used for forced sensitivity training of pilots who do their very best, under the circumstances, to make flying safer by restricting the travel of some individuals. We have embarked on a process that serves no logical purpose. While airline safety suffers, personal liberty is diminished and costs skyrocket.

If we’re willing to consider a different foreign policy, we should ask ourselves a few questions:

1. What if the policies of foreign intervention, entangling alliances, policing the world, nation building, and spreading our values through force are deeply flawed?

2. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction?

3. What if it is true that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were never allies?

4. What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security?

5. What if our current policy in the Middle East leads to the overthrow of our client oil states in the region?

6. What if the American people really knew that more than 20,000 American troops have suffered serious casualties or died in the Iraq war, and 9% of our forces already have been made incapable of returning to battle?

7. What if it turns out there are many more guerrilla fighters in Iraq than our government admits?

8. What if there really have been 100,000 civilian Iraqi casualties, as some claim, and what is an acceptable price for “doing good?”

9. What if Rumsfeld is replaced for the wrong reasons, and things become worse under a Defense Secretary who demands more troops and an expansion of the war?

10. What if we discover that, when they do vote, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis support Islamic (Sharia) law over western secular law, and want our troops removed?

11. What if those who correctly warned of the disaster awaiting us in Iraq are never asked for their opinion of what should be done now?

12. What if the only solution for Iraq is to divide the country into three separate regions, recognizing the principle of self-determination while rejecting the artificial boundaries created in 1918 by non-Iraqis?

13. What if it turns out radical Muslims don’t hate us for our freedoms, but rather for our policies in the Middle East that directly affected Arabs and Muslims?

14. What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden?

15. What if we discover that democracy can’t be spread with force of arms?

16. What if democracy is deeply flawed, and instead we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?

17. What if Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda actually welcomed our invasion and occupation of Arab/Muslim Iraq as proof of their accusations against us, and it served as a magnificent recruiting tool for them?

18. What if our policy greatly increased and prolonged our vulnerability to terrorists and guerilla attacks both at home and abroad?

19. What if the Pentagon, as reported by its Defense Science Board, actually recognized the dangers of our policy before the invasion, and their warnings were ignored or denied?

20. What if the argument that by fighting over there, we won’t have to fight here, is wrong, and the opposite is true?

21. What if we can never be safer by giving up some of our freedoms?

22. What if the principle of pre-emptive war is adopted by Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and others, “justified” by current U.S. policy?

23. What if pre-emptive war and pre-emptive guilt stem from the same flawed policy of authoritarianism, though we fail to recognize it?

24. What if Pakistan is not a trustworthy ally, and turns on us when conditions deteriorate?

25. What if plans are being laid to provoke Syria and/or Iran into actions that would be used to justify a military response and pre-emptive war against them?

26. What if our policy of democratization of the Middle East fails, and ends up fueling a Russian-Chinese alliance that we regret-- an alliance not achieved even at the height of the Cold War?

27. What if the policy forbidding profiling at our borders and airports is deeply flawed?

28. What if presuming the guilt of a suspected terrorist without a trial leads to the total undermining of constitutional protections for American citizens when arrested?

29. What if we discover the army is too small to continue policies of pre-emption and nation-building? What if a military draft is the only way to mobilize enough troops?

30. What if the “stop-loss” program is actually an egregious violation of trust and a breach of contract between the government and soldiers? What if it actually is a backdoor draft, leading to unbridled cynicism and rebellion against a voluntary army and generating support for a draft of both men and women? Will lying to troops lead to rebellion and anger toward the political leadership running the war?

31. What if the Pentagon’s legal task-force opinion that the President is not bound by international or federal law regarding torture stands unchallenged, and sets a precedent which ultimately harms Americans, while totally disregarding the moral, practical, and legal arguments against such a policy?

32. What if the intelligence reform legislation-- which gives us bigger, more expensive bureaucracy-- doesn’t bolster our security, and distracts us from the real problem of revamping our interventionist foreign policy?

33. What if we suddenly discover we are the aggressors, and we are losing an unwinnable guerrilla war?

34. What if we discover, too late, that we can’t afford this war-- and that our policies have led to a dollar collapse, rampant inflation, high interest rates, and a severe economic downturn?

Why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the #1 function of the federal government-- to provide for national security-- has been severely undermined. On 9/11 we had a grand total of 14 aircraft in place to protect the entire U.S. mainland, all of which proved useless that day. We have an annual DOD budget of over $400 billion, most of which is spent overseas in over 100 different countries. On 9/11 our Air Force was better positioned to protect Seoul, Tokyo, Berlin, and London than it was to protect Washington D.C. and New York City.
Moreover, our ill-advised presence in the Middle East and our decade-long bombing of Iraq served only to incite the suicidal attacks of 9/11.

Before 9/11 our CIA ineptly pursued bin Laden, whom the Taliban was protecting. At the same time, the Taliban was receiving significant support from Pakistan-- our “trusted ally” that received millions of dollars from the United States. We allied ourselves with both bin Laden and Hussein in the 1980s, only to regret it in the 1990s. And it’s safe to say we have used billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the last 50 years pursuing this contradictory, irrational, foolish, costly, and very dangerous foreign policy.

Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation building, and frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us-- while leaving the homeland and our borders unprotected-- result from a foreign policy that is contradictory and not in our self interest.

I hardly expect anyone in Washington to pay much attention to these concerns. If I’m completely wrong in my criticisms, nothing is lost except my time and energy expended in efforts to get others to reconsider our foreign policy.

But the bigger question is:

What if I’m right, or even partially right, and we urgently need to change course in our foreign policy for the sake of our national and economic security, yet no one pays attention?

For that a price will be paid. Is it not worth talking about?

Excerpt from Common Dream

2005-01-26T13:00:00.000-08:00

From the list of the 10 worst companies in America 2004. Bush is wanting to push tort reforms that would put a cap on how much a plantif can be awarded in damages. But, then he allows a comany like Merck to continue selling products that have been known to be killers for over four years. That's four years of profits the company would be allowed to keep if Bush has his way. I say of the nearly 140K heart attacks and the 55K possible deaths these people have caused, they should have to surrender ALL of the monies they earned from Vioxx during the time they knew the drug was unsafe. A tort cap would prevent greiving families and victims of Merck's predatory practices from properly punishing this behavior.

Merck: Dr. David Graham, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug safety official, calls it "maybe the single greatest drug-safety catastrophe in the history of this country." Testifying before a Senate committee in November, Dr. David Graham put the number in the United States who had suffered heart attacks or stroke as result of taking the arthritis drug Vioxx in the range of 88,000 to 139,000. As many as 40 percent of these people, or about 35,000-55,000, died as a result, Graham said. The unacceptable cardiovascular risks of Vioxx were evident as early as 2000 -- a full four years before the drug was finally withdrawn from the market by its manufacturer, Merck, according to a study released by The Lancet, the British medical journal. Merck says it disclosed all relevant evidence on Vioxx safety as soon as it acquired it, and pulled the drug as soon as it saw conclusive evidence of the drug's dangers.

Thank you Center for American Progress

2005-01-26T06:19:00.000-08:00

This is just plain lazy but how could I not post this!

Claim vs. Fact: Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement

April 8, 2004

CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."

FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaida suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power -- intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military -- to meet this goal."

FACT: 9/11 Comissioner Jamie Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."

FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]

CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaida."

FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."

FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke."

FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously – and inaccurately – denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaida plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]

CLAIM: "When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity."

FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI." Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved "farther to the back burner" and recounted how the Bush Administration's top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, "shut down" a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen." [Sources: Washington Post, 3/22/04; LA Times, 3/30/04]

CLAIM: "The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and Summer of 2001 was not specific as to...manner of attack."

FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft." [Sources: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]

Renz Rant

2005-01-21T13:40:00.000-08:00

As far as I'm concerned the evangelical Christians that helped put
Bush back in office just aren't thinking right. They've served up
soldiers in Iraq so that homosexuals could not wed. Young men, in
the prime of their lives die each day so that unborn fetuses may
live. Their support of a man who to them represents high moral
values has come at the cost of countless lives.

I wonder how a faith based on compassion, loving thy neighbor,
and "turning the other cheek" has become so skewed. Jim
Wallace, author of God's Politics asks: "how did Jesus become
pro-rich, pro-war and only pro-American? You feel like your faith
has been hijacked. I think the political right has indeed tried to
hijack faith, and now some of us want to take it back, almost in a
rescue operation."

Who are these evangelical Christians that pronounce how we
should live our lives? Polls conducted by the respected pollsters
like The Gallup Organization and the Barna Group have provided
surveys that conclude that Christians are just as likely to embrace
lifestyles as hedonistic, materialistic, self-centered, and sexually
immoral as the world in general.

Divorce is more common among "born-again" Christians than in
the general American population.

Only 6 percent of evangelicals tithe.

White evangelicals are the most likely people to object to
neighbors of another race.

I'm pro-abortion. A fetus is not a cognizant, viable life. I do
believe in same-sex civil unions, and according committed gay
couples the same rights as married couples but I believe marriage
is a union between a man and a woman. I'll defend my position on
the gay marriage issue up to a point but not at the cost of sending
young men to die defending a lie. Yes, this election was about
'moral values." But it should have been about an unmerited war.

Why Public Money?

2005-01-21T13:09:00.000-08:00

Mesa Arizona -- $80 million
Tempe Arizona -- Attempts to grab private property for private development sighting Imminent Domain.
Scottsdale Arizona -- Auto Dealerships are claiming financial hardship and are now asking for money from the community to assist.

Why is it that we as a community even tolerate this in the slightest way? I have to be honest with you, when Jerry Colangelo built the Arizona Diamondback's ballpark I supported it because I believed it would do our community good. I don't feel that way any more. I've seen far too many private companies with political influence manipulate government to their own advantage. So where does that leave you and I?

What do these private enterprises do for me? I pay my taxes and much of that money is going to private concerns, yet I see no benefit to me and my family. I have yet to see anybody I know get unemployment checks from Bank One Ball Park or from any other private business for that matter. These business' are solely built to extract money from the community.

So we build these projects with community money then we use them with our money. Who benefits? That is the question we need to be asking every single member of our government. When they can clearly and honestly answer that question (with a paper trail) then the roaches will come into the light for all to see. I would bet my life and family that it will always turn out to be some entity other than the community who approved the project.

Mike Renz TFTD

2005-01-21T13:02:00.000-08:00

"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is
gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding
additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."
Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has
weapons of mass destruction."
Dick Cheney, Vice President

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and
Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

So boys, how would you like those eggs?

So why have we and the media made so little stink about the
absence of these alleged WMD's? Maybe because the writing was
on the wall. Has been for months. The lack of WMD's comes as no
surprise; we knew it not long after Bush's quagmire began. What's
sad is we seem to have become quite complacent about it. We
have an administration that lied to us and started a war based on
that lie but because the evidence came in bits, and the truth kind of
crept up on us, we seem to have already resolved ourselves to
accept it.

Opinions for Hire

2005-01-20T09:25:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I'm a bit late in talking about this but here's the deal. Why would the most powerful government on the planet feel it necessary to pay a journalist to push their agenda? Perhaps it could be related to the fact that this administrations entire foundation is built upon lies and fear. I've always been one of those people who said that ALL politicians are liars and cheats, but what we are seeing here is systemic. There's an intelligence at work here that belies the true intent. With over one hundred years psychological research at their disposal, one would have to be quite naive to believe they have not used this to their advantage.

How can the 56 million people who voted to keep the status quo feel that they are safer or that Democracy is being fulfilled. I'm sure the small group of wealthy elite feel they got their money's worth in this election. Just look at main stream media and you will see how their money is being spent on a daily basis.

The Armstrong Williams situation is (I'm quite sure) the proverbial "tip of the iceberg" and we need to find out just how deep this thing goes. I say, ask questions and send messages to people who perpetuate the lie and let them know just how disgusted you are that money is vastly more important than the truth.

Mike Renz (Contributor)

2005-01-20T08:29:00.000-08:00

I hope the soldiers under fire in Iraq don't miss the opportunity to
watch all the galas the President and his staff will be attending.

Perhaps he could send them postcards that read:

"Having a great time, wish you were here."

Clueless. Utterly clueless.

Mike Renz TFTD (Thought For The Day)

2005-01-19T08:25:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer accused
Condoleezza Rice of knowingly making misleading statements
about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and ties to
terrorism in order to sell the U.S. invasion. No WMDs have ever
been found.

". . . your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war,
overwhelmed your respect for the truth," Senator Boxer said, "and I
don't say it lightly," referring to Rice's September 2002 statement
that raised the spectre of "a mushroom cloud" from Saddam
Hussein's alleged nuclear weapons program.

Rice responded with: "Senator, I have to say that I have never,
ever lost respect for the truth."

Okay, so is she saying she didn't lie? I mean, I respect the truth as
much as the next man, but I won't say I've never told a lie.

The take at the water-cooler at my work (a christian printing
company where I am the one non-christian) is that Barbara Boxer
and Condoleezza Rice are at polar opposites when it comes to I.Q.
With Rice meeting all the eligibility requirements to join MENSA,
and Boxer unable to open a cereal box without instructions. To
them, anyone that questions the current administration is either
misinformed, extremely naive, or an idiot. These same people can
believe without question in a god that would allow a disaster like
the recent tsunami that took so many innocent lives.

How could he know...

2005-01-19T06:16:00.000-08:00

How could he? Bush I mean, he's has so isolated himself from the world around him that he is now completely out of touch with the harsh realities of his actions and words.

Take for example the inauguration party, (I'm not even going to talk about the cost!) I was reading the news a couple days ago and saw a structure in front of a set of bleachers. It was a massive glassed in structure much like a fish tank. My guess is this is a bullet proof enclosure designed to protect the President during his inauguration ceremony. What a sad commentary that he is starting to look much like the mad-man he has recently deposed! Saddam Hussein used body doubles to keep his people confused as to when he would actually be in a public setting, thereby making it difficult at best to organize a coup.

I'm wondering now when Bush will begin to use body doubles. Its abundantly clear he has surrounded himself with enough "fall guys", I'm sure there are any number of people in his secret service staff who would willingly undergo plastic surgery to "protect" the Commander in Chief. Loyalty is one thing but blind mis-guided trust is tantamount to faith! (and if you've ever read anything on my website you'll know my feelings on that!)

It is abundantly clear that a man who ran as a "uniter not a divider" has done a great job at uniting our enemies and adversaries. In recent polls our country is just as divided as it was four years ago. This President is the worst possible answer to the worlds real problems in these troubled days.

From Mike Renz (contributor)

2005-01-18T11:08:00.000-08:00

Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice told senators on
Tuesday that spreading democracy through the Middle East
remains a top administration foreign-policy objective. She
neglected to mention they plan on doing it through the use of force.
Could Iran be next on the administration's list?

The money being spent on Bush's inauguration & three days of
parties could pay for 690 Humvees and a $290 bonus for each
soldier serving in Iraq. But hey, it's the "Have-mores" money, let
'em spend it anyway they want. The corporate and special interest
donors just want to celebrate another four years of gluttony at the
trough of the administration.

Watch for Dick Cheney's annoying little leer as he delights in the
swearing in of his dutiful little puppet.

Just another day in paradise, eh?

"Quaint" Provisions

2005-01-06T13:51:00.000-08:00

I'd like to know something. When G.W. Bush was Governor of Texas his state AG was Alberto Gonzales. Okay, fine they have a long-standing relationship. But, normally people of conscience will see that their actions have positive AND negative effects on the people they lead. GW has seen none of the effects his decisions have cast upon the people of the United States, because his bottom line is the bottom line. Alberto Gonzales used to hand George Bush a one-page memo just prior to a condemned killers execution. GW used this in making his decision to stay or proceed with a prisoner’s execution. I would hope that if I were on death row the person who was making the final decision about my life or death was getting more than a one-page summary of my life. I understand that a Governor has many responsibilities and is a very busy person but we're talking about a human life here! Now this same person who finds that provisions of the Geneva Convention are "quaint" or "antiquated" will be the "top cop" for the US and that disturbs me greatly!

The U.S. is setting the ground work to be the "odd man out" when it comes to our global community. I used to say when Bush started his elective war against the sovereign nation of Iraq (an unarmed nation by the way) that he was guiding us "on to the fast track to third world status." Our nation, I hate to say, will in the next generation be, a has-been country and will forever be looking for the "good ol' days" as a superpower. Perpetually blaming politicians for the nations problems. Not even thinking about the time we as a nation voted to keep an administration in power whose belief that torture of people is justified in order to maintain national security.

Benjamin Franklin said once… "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Hmm… I wonder how one might apply this to today’s situation.

From the Air America Website...

2005-01-04T11:51:00.000-08:00

I was just reading this on the AirAmerica site and just had to put it here, just in case anybody is reading this little blog of ours.

As an index of how badly the situation is developing in Iraq, Professor Juan Cole refers to a statement by General Muhammad Abdullah Shahwani, head of Iraqi intelligencein which he estimated that "the force strength of the guerrilla insurgency was about 200,000 men." Cole notes that, "The US military used to say 5,000, then started saying 20,000- 25,000, but frankly I don't think they have any idea."

Bush ran in his first camaign as a "Uniter not a Devider" which now in retrospect seems to be his pimary MO (modus operandi). Which is to say whatever quiets the people and then do exactly what you want, even if it contraticts with what you have already stated to America. Bush is a LIAR and no amount of reconstitution on his part will ever undo the damage created.

Is the Cost Worth the Pay-Off?

2005-01-04T08:25:00.000-08:00

I was listening to Charles Goyette this morning and he was interviewing a guest who is a specialist in international affairs. The persons name and the specific points are not what I'm getting to here in this post. But, what he was saying got me thinking about the cost of this war. What I am asking is this: In light of the fact that there has been no indication that any of the reasons we went into this war have come to fruition, has the cost in human lives and monies been worth our efforts? To simplify my point (and by no means am I trying minimize our losses) think about a person who buys a car. They drive off thinking that they got a good deal and plenty of value for their dollar. However when they get the car home they find that the transmission was filled sawdust (old used car trick to keep it quiet) and the car doesn't look quite like they expected. Now what do you think they will feel about the money they spent on that car?
The United States has been sold a lemon in this current administration. We've been sold an illegal war and just now (two years into the war) we are starting to see that the tires are bald and there is a huge oil stain under the car.
Well that's enough of simplistic metaphors, we need to see this administration for what it's worth, used car sales men who are willing to sell their best friends a lemon just to make a quick buck!

Interesting Quote of the Day...

2005-01-03T14:09:00.000-08:00

"Our pre-eminent security priority--underscored repeatedly by the president--is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken."
--Brent Scowcroft

And this from one of the most respected Republicans in Washington.

From Democratic Underground from... NY Times.

2005-01-02T18:33:00.000-08:00

Sleaze in the Capitol

One of the sorriest chapters of American history, the gulling of native Indian tribes, is continuing apace in Washington, where two Capitol insiders close to the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, are being investigated for allegedly fleecing six tribes of more than $80 million with inflated promises of V.I.P. access. The shameful dealings of Jack Abramoff, a Republican power lobbyist, and Michael Scanlon, Mr. DeLay's former spokesman, are coming to light as Senate and Justice Department investigators follow leads from nouveau-riche tribes whose casino profits spurred a new category of lucre and greed in the hyperkinetic world of Washington lobbying.

Even as the two fast-talking political brokers banked large profits for three years of minimal labor, it was found, they were exchanging gleeful private messages mocking tribal leaders as "morons," "troglodytes" and "monkeys." "I want all their MONEY!!!" Mr. Scanlon exuberantly e-mailed in the midst of one deal.

The outrageous affair includes evidence that the two sought to manipulate tribal elections to ensure their lobbying boondoggles, while dropping the names of Mr. DeLay and other leaders and urging tribal contributions to Republican political funds. In the latest high-roller abuses laid bare by The Washington Post, Mr. Abramoff was found to have prodded the tribes to pay for his luxury skyboxes at Washington sports arenas - yes, even at the home of the football Redskins - so he could impress Capitol politicians, staff members and fund-raisers with swank perches to push causes unrelated to tribal issues. A colleague pronounced Mr. Abramoff a master of schmooze, but sleaze seems a far better word.

While the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is continuing its inquiry, the Republican House leadership remains mute. The gulling of the casino tribes is a blot on Congress and the lobbying industry that cries out for a thorough public vetting. But no one is taking any bets, particularly at tribal casinos, that Capitol politicians can fully face the task.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/opinion/02sun2.html

Faith Based Government

2005-01-02T09:24:00.000-08:00

It would seem that our current government would rather have the population of the United States accept on "faith" that they have our best interests in mind. I just having difficulty understanding this lie. There are a whole slew of events and issues that have arisen since this fiasco started back in September of 2001. How sad that this same year is the year I have to remember the birth of my son the year I got my first "sit at a desk in a cubicle" job and its the year my Diamondbacks won the world series. How sad that I have to lump some of my most poignant memories together with our government's greatest short-coming.
But that is how religion works, it feeds on emotions and fear to foster collective, chosen ignorance. You don't have to look overseas to the middle east to see this. Just look in our own back yard, (in this case central Arizona) here we have an entire class of people who have accepted on "faith" that a flim-flam man from the late 1800's would have been granted special permission from god to start his own religion. I'm talking of course about the Mormons who believe that a scheister could be chosen as a personal profit of god.
This is not unlike what we have today in our "modern" government. There used to be checks and balances in place (to include the press) now we are being ask in the name of "national security" to accept what the Bushies say on "faith" that they have our best interests at heart. I don't believe this considering that over a thousand of our finest men and women have given everything they had to "believe" in this war. A war that was "sold" to the faithful based on the contrived fear of an impending attack on America. Where was the attack, if you believe they have prevented an attack by taking the war to the terrorists then you've not been paying attention and might want to start doing some independent research on your own and stop listening to the FOX NEWS channels and all the other right wing shills being pay and/or bullied into present the world through the rose colored glasses for far too long.

Profit

2005-01-01T15:43:00.000-08:00

Hmm... I wonder who is making the most money during this whole Iraqi "liberation?" So far it looks like the whole bunch of Bushie insiders. Since this whole blogging internet thing is doing so well I wonder is there isn't already some anonymous informant signing some blog somewhere with information leading to the heads of state. Power and greed are the cliche corrupter in this world but what about the tools of the powerful? The righteous. They have prooven their loyalty to corruption throughout history and why should this day in age be any different.

So if you read my obscure little blog, ask yourself this... Is any of the information stored in my mind, in my heart, in my reality worth bringing down so many Innocent lives? Religion lost it's innocence long ago and I dare say it is at the core of the problems our societies face daily in our mutual quest to rise above our past. So if your dirty little secret can set you free then be free. Be free her be free somewhere. Please.

Worst of the worst

2004-12-31T08:05:00.000-08:00

So G.W. Bush has won on a "mandate" and connected with moral values in America? How? This is what I would like to know? Because if the 56 million people who voted for him are acting in the same manner as the people who funded him then I truly do not understand what's going on here. As of today not one of the major "moral" reform groups (American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, and Focus on the Family) have offered to assist in the tragedy. In fact they are not even soliciting their memberships for assistance. So let me get this straight... We'll spend million upon millions to get you elected just don't look to us for anything beyond pushing our Christian/conservative/theocracy agenda.

My vote for Hypocrisy of the year goes to the religious right! May you all rot in your own personal hell some day.

The Death Toll Climbs

2004-12-30T06:41:00.000-08:00

Every day the number of dead from the tsunami climbs to a number seemingly impossible. We hear of the European Union sending 40 million dollars and Japan starting off with 30 million. Yet we only see the Bush administration sending a paltry 35 million dollars. What's wrong with this picture? I wont even expand on the 200+ billion GW is spending on an illegal war. The Bushies are spending 40 million on a party to show the world how "important" GW is? I don't get it this is supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility and yet they have shown to be the most spend happy administration in recent history. Its wrong and I hope Bush and his Attorny General go down in flames. But that's another topip altogether...

Wednesday...

2004-12-29T10:49:00.000-08:00

Mike's thought for the day. The Red Cross said today they estimate the deaths to be over 100,000. My question is this: What "god" would allow this many innocent lives to be taken so thoughtlessly? In my mind and, I believe, any rational mind there can be no explaination as to why a "god" would want this to be placed on people.
So here's my thinking on the matter... If there is a "god" who would allow this kind of shit to happen to so many people; FUCK GOD! I would rather spend the rest of eternity in hell than spend one second with a diety who would cause so much pain and anguish.

Hello World

2004-12-28T14:34:00.000-08:00

I seem to remember that was the first thing I ever wrote to a computer terminal using computer programming language. I thought it apprpreate to start the Leavitt Family Blog with the same words.

This is day three in the Tsunami crisis in Asia. The last I read was the dead were number over 50 thousand. There are whole communities lost to this tragedy and all I've heard from U.S.media is bickering about how little we've sent in aid. Had we not engaged in an illegal war in Iraq I'm sure it would be far easier to send money and resourses to these needing countries.

So its not the most pleasent of times for us to open our Blog, but what do you do...