Monday, July 30, 2007

Here's a Petition Worth Signing

"Congress is voting this week on H.R. 969, a bill that will dramatically boost solar and wind energy. If it passes, it'll be like taking 37 million cars off the road. Along with the rest of the energy package, it'll be the biggest step in two decades toward a clean planet and affordable energy."

Click here to sign this petition!

Sunday, July 29, 2007

Will Bush Declare Martial Law – Or Worse?

Presidential candidate Ron Paul says that the U.S. is in “great danger” of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation... that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of martial law – that Bush recently signed into law via executive order.

What might Bush/Cheney team be capable of?

Bush and Cheney's approval ratings are near record lows. There is even talk of impeachment. The Republican Party doesn't stand a chance at winning the next presidential race. The only Republican candidate who stands out among the Bush clone wannabes is Ron Paul. However, his libertarian opinions probably won't get him much support from the Republican money/power structure. A Democrat looks like a shoe-in for the next president. Are Bush and Cheney powerless to stop the political blowback of their inept and corrupt “leadership?” Only if they play by the rules.

Now remember, the Bush and Cheney team didn't get elected (or likely reelected) by playing by the “rules.” The Bush and Cheney team have spent the past 7 years rewriting the rules so that they can do whatever they want. Just recently, they have thumbed their noses at Congress over a number of issues that used to be considered criminal. Nonetheless, the Bush/Cheney team are not as powerful as they once were. Most everything they have overseen is coming undone – and the American people are not happy about it. What Bush and Cheney need is another 9/11.

Terrorists once saved the Bush/Cheney team from a mediocre one-term presidency. In case you don't remember, these guys weren't very popular in their first few months in office. Al Gore had received 150,000 more votes nationwide, and the Supreme Court wouldn't allow the Florida recount to finish. Cheney was off doing back room deals with energy companies, and Bush was busy trying to get a tax break for the rich. They had no top level meetings concerning terrorism in the first 8 months. I cannot remember either of them even mentioning the term “terrorist” before 9/11. And then, like some perverse godsend, terrorists made the Bush/Cheney team popular.

I have never contended that the Twin Towers were blown up. I feel that the 9/11 attacks were genuine terrorist attacks – that could have been prevented had it not been for the ineptitude of our government agencies. The Bush/Cheney team had 8 months to see that those agencies were functioning, and fix things if need be. In case you haven't noticed, the Bush/Cheney team hasn't been bragging about what security reforms they made before 9/11. Sometimes, politicians win by losing. Sometimes, politicians can get what they want by doing nothing. We all know that the Bush/Cheney team did essentially nothing about terrorism before 9/11. The only thing we don't know is whether it was presidential ineptitude or scheming that led to essentially no acts to prevent the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Since 9/11, the Bush/Cheney team has played the terrorism card for as much as they can get. If there wasn't any scheming before 9/11, there definitely has been since. The same team that was supposed to be on watch when 9/11 occurred now wants us to believe that they are our only hope for salvation. The terror alerts and scares have been nonstop. It almost seems as if the Bush/Cheney team is hoping there will be another terrorist attack, so that the Nation will rally behind them again. So, how bad do they want another terrorist attack?

In 2002, the Defense Science Board requested the creation of a 100 man $100 million team called the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group (P2OG) that would provoke terrorist attacks. The lame excuse for provoking terrorists was to get them to expose themselves to attacks by U.S. Forces. Of course, if the terrorists didn't attack, they wouldn't actually be terrorists, now would they? Haven't we provoked enough terrorists already? Why would we want to steal their money, trick them with fake communications, kill their family members, or infiltrate their groups with provocateurs, who could even direct terrorist strikes? Just suggesting that we provoke terrorists is insane! But U.S. taxpayers might now be paying for it. In fact, we might even be paying for U.S. controlled terrorist groups to commit atrocities (to get street credibility with existing terrorist groups). Is it really such a stretch for P2OG to commit one of these atrocities on the U.S. mainland?

The U.S. military/industrial complex has pushed very hard. However, even with all the U.S. warships off the coast of Iran, even with the military occupation of Iraq, even with all of the violent acts done in the name of the U.S. worldwide; I doubt that there will be a legitimate terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland. The terrorists of the world have been watching U.S. politics. They see that Bush and Cheney are in trouble. The American people are becoming very discouraged and aggravated with Bush/Cheney team. This time; all the terrorists have to do is wait and do nothing.

As an example; even though Homeland Security has been publishing (for years now) when security is low (with their various colored alerts), the terrorists haven't taken the bait. A terrorist attack now, when the Bush/Cheney team needs it the most, seems extremely unlikely.

Consequently, if there is a “terrorist” attack now, you should be very skeptical of who's terrorists commit it.

I doubt that there will be a military attack of any sort ordered by Iran. Whatever they can do to us, our military is prepared, poised, and willing... no... itching to do 100 times worse. If Iran attacks one of our warships, we'll attack their country. No matter the provocation, it would be suicide for Iran to order an attack on the U.S. Would it be out of character for America to stage an attack? Not really. That's what happened to North Viet Nam at the Gulf of Tonkin. Again, be very skeptical of an attack on a U.S. military installation outside of Iraq.

I also doubt that there will be any use of Weapons of Mass Destruction – unless the terrorists could be absolutely sure we couldn't determine the weapons' origin. The U.S. has 10,000 nuclear weapons and thousands of other WMD. It would be downright silly for America to use the WMD excuse to attack Iran for the same reason that it was silly to attack Iraq over WMD. Even if Iran had Weapons of Mass Destruction, their only practical use would be as retaliatory weapons of last resort. If Iran were to nuke an American city (or even Israel), the U.S. (or Israel) would then nuke the whole nation of Iran. There would be nothing left in Iran but dead bodies and oil. Yet... I wonder if the Bush and Cheney team might like that option – after what's happened in Iraq.

I'm speculating, of course. Maybe the Bush/Cheney team have some scruples after all. Maybe they aren't willing to destroy what's left of the American dream of a democratic republic. Maybe they won't allow a staged terrorist attack. Maybe even the Bush/Cheney “team” won't set Bush up with no options but to retaliate and declare martial law. And then again, maybe if we all know what they're up to, they won't be able to pull it off. Please let others know, so that this cannot be a surprise.

Saturday, July 28, 2007

A Utopian Realist

It gives me great hope that we may decide to avoid really screwing things up with coal-fired power plants – and choose to build clean, safe, and sustainable power generators.

I may have been accused of being a starry-eyed Utopian – by some self-proclaimed “realist.” But, whatever they might say, I believe that I'm a realist. I simply believe we should aim, with all our heart, for what we really want.

I shoot archery. I have found that my shots are either right exactly where I aimed, or end up who knows where. Whether I hit or miss depends primarily upon my attitude. By living at (least a moment) in focus: of determination, self-assurance, and desire – I can hit my target... By force of will, I can hit my target. Indeed, there is no other way. I suspect that life is very much like this.

Life, of course, is far more complex than just shooting something to get what you want. But we can still use the shooting analogy for goals we set for ourselves. Life's targets are constantly moving, changing, and changing in number. I cannot tell you what to aim for. You will know yourself far better than me. I can only warn you to be cautious. Misspent effort will be your greatest regret in life.

So, what do we aim for? I'll let you know when I figure this one out. But I do have a good general idea – the usual stuff; health, happiness, awareness, and a purpose or two (the fuel for our dreams).

Our dreams are a main component of who we really are. Our dreams help determine what we want to achieve. Our dreams are our ideal vision of our future. If we are not working towards our dreams, we'll never really be happy. So, I would claim; if you're not a starry-eyed Utopian, you're probably not living your potential to the fullest... you've just accepted that you'll miss your target (not the type of realist I want to be).

Should those like me really be considered starry-eyed Utopians at all, when the alternative is just to put up with the pain. I believe that it is the true realists who insist that we:

  • breath clean air

  • are not denied our healthy ecosystems

  • are not denied a peaceful, healthy future

  • live in legal systems that function

  • live in economic systems that function

  • and ensure that the Earth's Environment doesn't collapse

Question: What kind of “realist” would deny these critically important goals?

Answer: A very dangerous realist.

Maybe all of us “realists” should consider the concepts of heaven and hell also as analogies for this life. Humanity can create a hell on Earth. But we can also create something like a heaven. Aren't religions trying to get us to constantly be striving towards heaven? This may be life's ultimate test. Can we hit our targets? Can we create a Utopia? Will we even try?

For those of you who do believe in a heaven in the afterlife, this ultimate test might be the determining factor for your entry into heaven. “Did you really screw things up here?” Or, “Did you make things better?”

I'm no angel, but if I were the one who decided who made it to heaven and who didn't, and I saw what a mess we're making here on Earth, I'd be concerned that humans weren't ready for heaven.

Maybe we're not ready for Utopia. Maybe we need to keep screwing things up until we eventually get it right. But then again, maybe we only get one chance.

I have hope that we can use our chance, we can do what it takes, and we can make things better.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Thanks Harry

Nevada Senator Harry Reid has pledged that he'll do everything he can to stop construction of the three coal-fired power plants in Nevada.

Thanks Harry, your good deeds will not be forgotten.