The Progressive Blog Alliance HQ

So you wanna wage a "war" on terror. Start by banning guns, all guns, all people. Pay attention!

Enough is more than enough. As I write, at least 32 people are dead at VT, the victims of a lone gunman, apparently with an assault rifle.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

OK, look, goddammit . . . it says, "a well regulated militia". Individual gun ownership has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia. And it's obvious that nothing here is well-regulated. We don't at all need a "militia" composed of individuals, except perhaps the National Guard. The Second Amendment was written at a time when individual states had no organized militias. During the Revolution, armies were created (read "bought") to respond to a specific threat, then disbanded when the conflict was over. Our Navy was created later to guard our shores and defeat piracy. Later, with guns in individual and army hands, we perpetrated the genocide of the tribes who first possessed Turtle Island.

The Gun Control Network reports:

Most Mass Gun Killers are also Legal Gun Owners - Research

The following data were prepared in the wake of the shooting in Erfurt, Germany, 26 April 2002.

In the 14 deadliest mass shootings committed in wealthy nations during the past 35 years:

• 79% of the victims were shot with lawfully held firearms (185 of 233 victims)
• 86% of these mass shooting (12 of 14) were committed by lawful gun owners

Many killers, like the 19-year-old who shot 16 people dead at his school in Germany, were previously law-abiding sporting shooters or pistol club members - men whose legal ownership of guns was not questioned by authorities until after the tragedy . . .

In a study of 65 high-profile multiple-victim shootings in the United States during 40 years, 62% of handgun shootings and 71% of long gun shootings were committed with legally acquired firearms (Violence Policy Center, 2001)

Private gun ownership in the 21st century should be a crime. Protecting private property is the police force's job. I remember at least two widely reported incidents in which kids were killed by an armed property owner who objected to their trespassing. Guns for "sport" hunting are an anachronism. Non-human species are enough in short supply without humans killing them for fun.

Here's the history of the "right to bear arms."

Here are some other stats, from he@lth:
# In 1998 (the most recent year for which there are statistics) 10 young people a day died from gunshot.

# Gun homicide is the fourth leading cause of death for young people 10-14 years of age and the second leading cause of death for young people 15-24. [National Center for Health Statistics, 1997.]

# Gunshot wounds are the leading cause of death for both African-American and white teenage males [Journal of the American Medical Association].

# One in six parents say they know a child who accidentally shot himself or herself with a gun [Harvard School of Public Health].

# A youth aged 10-19 committed suicide with a gun every six hours in 1995 -- 1,449 young people in one year [National Center for Health Statistics, 1997].

# At a national level, emergency room data verify that suicide attempts with firearms are almost always fatal -- for every gun suicide, there is less than one nonfatal injury. [Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995].

# Suicide is nearly 5 times more likely to occur in a household with a gun than in a household without a gun. [Kellerman, A.L. et al., N Engl J Med 327, 1993.]

# In 1996, 2 people were murdered by handguns in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 106 in Canada, 213 in Germany, and 9,390 in the United States. [FBI Uniform Crime Report]

# Nine out of ten young people who are murdered in industrialized countries are slain in the United States [United Nations Children’s Fund report, "The Progress of Nations" quoted in St. Paul Pioneer Press, 9/26/93].

# Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. [ Kellermann and Reay, N.E. Journal of Medicine]

# Every two years, more Americans die of gunshot than there were American soldiers killed during the entire Vietnam War [National Center for Health Statistics, Department of Defense Almanac].

Repeal the Second Amendment. Down with the NRA. Close down arms makers, dealers, and other merchants of death.

WHAT PART OF DEATH DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND, FOOL?

A discussion on the Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/30/232423/217

I have been doing my political posting more and more at a A Bomb A Nation, which I encourage you browse until I get it on the PBA blogroll. I still say the war is the top issue of the moment but I don't think that is what built the foundation of support for new faces in congress.

Brother and Sisters:

As but a single citizen of the United States of America, I raise my voice in sadness and shame at the actions of our government, past, present, and future. I strongly believe that my words and views are shared by a growing majority of American citizens.

Many of us opposed our government's war against Iraq before the first missile was launched and many have joined us since, constituting now a majority of our citizens. At the moment of the attacks in September, 2001, I knew that our President and his administration would opportunistically use the event as justification for all manner of aggressive military action. Although we cannot condone the actions of bin Laden and al Qaeda, we also do not condone our own government's actions. Many of us advocate reconciliation . . . [more at P!]

Scare them to death with "shock and awe", take Baghdad, capture Saddam, seize the oil fields, disband the army, and turn the economy into a capitalist entrepreneurial free-fire zone. Set up an "interim" administration to assure that Parsons, KBR, SAIC, and the others make millions "rebuilding" the infrastructure and creating a military launching pad. No problem. Just sit back and absorb the adulation from the emancipated Iraqi people and the good people of America. Next?

Well yeah. I guess there'll be a few folks killed along the way. But this is in the service of freedom and democracy. Those broken eggs will make a great omelet - a decidedly western omelet. And we might tell a few fibs in the process, too. The American people wouldn't understand and might be skeptical if we told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The victorious outcome is all they want, anyway. Isn't that what they "elected" us for?

So please don't bother us with irrelevant details. Shi'ites and Sunnis and Kurds? A Muslim's a Muslim, right? Insurgency? You mean a few rabid al-Kayduh types rolling around in battered Toyota pick-ups? No match for American fire power. Not to worry. Anyway, we got God on our side (and a lot of frustrated right-wing Christians, too).

One flew west. Remember duct tape? Didn't you just love the pretty terrorist alert thingy? The President reminded us that, "when the going gets tough, the tough go shopping". Just keep watching "24" and we'll get you a new X Box.

Now look, folks . . . we're gonna have to make a few adjustments here at home to git it done. In support of our common security, we'll have to follow the "if you're not for us, you're against us" line. The Constitution just ain't helpful in situations like these. Everyone's the enemy, guilty until they're proven innocent (yeah, like that's gonna happen).

So don't complain, 'cuz complainers are terrorists (or liberals - same difference). Somebody gets "disappeared", just don't worry, OK? We got some real handy ways of convincin' 'em to 'fess up and rat out their fellow travelers. We got a war to win. Just keep knowing that Saddam masterminded 911, and we're gonna take good care of him.

Oh, yeah. And this is gonna cost a few bucks, too. So we're gonna keep taxes on the rich and on the corporations real low so they can pay for this. Goes without saying that we're gonna have to sacrifice some trees and rivers and po' folks, but good 'Mericans always are willing to sacrifice for their country in times of war. Just don't listen to those gutless ninnies who say that the good ole USA is going bankrupt behind this. After all, the bill won't come due 'til after we're all dead.

One flew over the cuckoo's nest. A couple of weeks ago, watching news clips of Americans trampling and beating other Americans in stores trying to buy the latest popular trinkets and toys, I was hit (again) with a deep, disillusioned depression. Why didn't we see this kind of thing happen at polling places two weeks earlier, with Americans fighting each other to vote? I guess it's because we value the latest video game more than the activity of democracy and self-government.

I could see little difference between these store rioters and fourth-worlders bum-rushing the UN truck when it pulls up with water and powdered milk. Except that the Americans tend to be obese and white, the fourth-worlders skinny and black.

It seems like, to Americans, this government stuff is just a bother, an inconvenience that some (but not all) of us tolerate every couple of years. The only reason most of us show up to vote is that election campaigns have become beauty pageants or survival games just like on "reality TV".

Only a month after the mid-term elections, Americans who did vote have congratulated themselves, washed their hands, and turned on "Who Wants to be a Trillionaire". Democrats are satisfied that they've repudiated the Republican policies. The war will be over soon.

Who notices that the Democrats have already lined up against "a precipitous withdrawal" from a lost war against a ravaged people. Who cares that they have also rejected executive impeachment out of hand? Who understands that Speaker of the House (maybe) Nancy Pelosi is fighting tooth and nail to put conservative party loyalists in leadership positions? Who realizes the implications of this excerpt of "CONGRESS IN TRANSITION: Pelosi hews to middle ground. With eye on 2008, new speaker works to keep Democrats united", from the SF Chronicle . . .

Pelosi may be among Congress' most vocal war critics, yet many Democrats worry that starving the Pentagon is a crude and ineffective way to end the war, with potentially disastrous political consequences. Pelosi has no interest in beginning her speakership with a divisive fight.

Similarly, while Pelosi voted against a GOP measure last week to permit oil drilling off the Gulf Coast, and another requiring that women seeking abortions be told that their fetuses feel pain, she chose not to use her leadership position to defeat the bills, which enjoyed a certain amount of Democratic support (the drilling measure passed; the abortion measure failed).

As the Republicans' 12-year-control of Capitol Hill came to a close, the Pelosi-led Democrats are steadfastly avoiding issues upon which they disagree and presenting a united front on matters from Iraq to congressional ethics.

Pelosi remains focused on a series of bread-and-butter items with broad support among Democrats that she will push when the party takes control of the House on Jan. 4.

"Ms. Pelosi has said many times that she will govern from the middle -- and that's what she is doing,'' said her spokesman, Brendan Daly.

Pelosi's agenda for the first 100 legislative hours of the new Congress includes House ethics, the minimum wage, college tuition costs, stem cell research, subsidies to oil companies and the security recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. She has pledged to take up each of the issues before Bush delivers his State of the Union address in late January . . .

Er, uh, well what about The USA PATRIOT Act, tax breaks for the rich, critical environmental issues, investigations into the incredible corruption among US contractors in Iraq?

Speaking of the latter, here's a clip from this morning's NYT piece, "Iraq Is Failing to Spend Billions in Oil Revenues":

BAGHDAD, Dec. 10 — Iraq is failing to spend billions of dollars of oil revenues that have been set aside to rebuild its damaged roads, schools and power stations and to repair refineries and pipelines.

Iraqi ministries are spending as little as 15 percent of the 2006 capital budgets they received for the rebuilding — with some of the weakest spending taking place at the Oil Ministry, which relies on damaged and frequently sabotaged pipelines and pumping stations to move the oil that provides nearly all of the country’s revenues. In essence, the money is available — despite extensive sabotage, the oil money is flowing — but the Iraqi system has not been able to put it to work.

The country is facing this national failure to spend even as American financial support dwindles. Among reasons for the problems — like a large turnover in government personnel — is a strange new one: bureaucrats are so fearful and confused by anticorruption measures put in place by the American and Iraqi governments that they are afraid to sign off on contracts . . .

OK, Nurse Ratchett, I'll have that lobotomy now . . . and make it a double-lobe, if you don't mind.

A couple of pieces at Consortium News, which has some of the best commentary and news on Bob Gates' nomination as SecDef, seem to bear out the main theme I've been pounding away at these past couple of weeks - the Democrats are unlikely to change anything.

First a snatch from "Democrats Cave on Gates Nomination" by Robert Parry:
Despite winning the Nov. 7 elections largely due to public anger over the Iraq War, congressional Democrats crumbled in their first post-election confrontation with President George W. Bush on the future direction of that conflict.

[full article at P! . .

It seems that almost everything I've read over the past week or two extols the "triumph" of the Democratic party's victory in the mid-term elections. Even the hard-left blogs and sites are at best rather silent and/or conciliatory.

Not so fast! Although even I feel a certain relief that the American electorate (or at least two-thirds of it) has backed off a bit from the current administration, I think a certain cautionary note is totally in order.

First, and most obviously, the Democrats in the Senate and the House have done little, if anything, to effectively challenge the Bush administration. There has been some rhetoric, but all too often speeches on the floor excoriating the Republican policies have been followed by votes in favor of Republican policies and actions. Although the Democrats have regained a majority in both chambers, none of the incumbent Democratic Members or Senators who have consistently voted with Bush were unseated by more left-leaning challengers.

The Democrats gained power almost entirely by simply saying they were "anti-Bush". We still don't know what they are "for". Even worse, recent statements by Howard Dean and several newly-elected Democrats, to the effect that they will let Bush have his war for the next two years is both saddening and enraging. Does this mean that the Democrats will not move against any other Bush policies? What about tax cuts for the wealthy, the USA PATRIOT Act, habeas corpus, constitutional matters like free speech, political prisoners and other critical issues?

It is my conviction that the Democrats will speak more forcefully against many Bush policies, but the rubber meets the road only when they bring these issues to the floor in the form of specific legislation and then vote on them.

Moreover, there is a built-in weakness in the new Democratic majority. That is that it is just barely over fifty percent. President Bush will very likely veto everything that comes his way. That will require a two-thirds majority in Congress to make the legislation law. It will matter more what the Republicans do than the Democrats say. Although it is accurate to think that many sitting Republicans may distance themselves from the President (he is no longer an asset to either side of the aisles), to think that there will be enough votes to end and roll back the neoconservative gains of the past six years is unrealistic.

It is entirely possible that the Democrats will not repeal crucial anti-democratic laws because in many ways those same laws benefit them. The Democrats have a very good chance of winning the White House in 2008. That Democratic president, however, is likely to be a conservative. If that President is Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, or any other Dem front runner, he or she would enjoy the enormous power transferred to the Executive by Bush. Democrats have little history of opposing a president of their own party, regardless of his/her fundamental political stance. And in truth, the Democrats have themselves rarely met a war they didn't like, lest they be accused of being "soft on defense".

For at least four years, we have heard cries for "a return to the old America". But which "old" America to we seek? The Clinton years, when the poor's social support system was emasculated and we relentlessly bombed Yugoslavia? The Carter years, which witnessed the rise of the Trilateral Commission, a doomed Middle East policy, an aggressive US arms buildup, and the unraveling of the Democratic Party? All hope is lost, at any rate, of a rollback to LBJ's or FDR's social programs.

One positive outcome of the Bush years has been the re-emergence of the "true" left, which has been moribund, voiceless, and wandering for decades. We are a potential force for fundamental change in our politics and culture. But history shows that this segment of the Left tends to become more marginalized when the Democratic Party has been in control. Whereas anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, anti-war, pro-socialist voices have been actively considered during this "neoconservative revolution", it is doubtful that the Democratic Party elite will have much patience for it. The Democratic leadership's calls for bi-partisanship, a slow, "reasoned" withdrawal of our beleaguered forces in Iraq, and continued support of neoliberal "free-trade" globilization are dominant.

The American Left, rather than being vindicated in the just-passed election, has once again failed itself. We (for I am one of us) have squandered the best opportunity to gain power we've had in many years. Instead of finding common cause and unity among the fractionalized parties, institutions, and "sects" on the Left, we chose to put much useless effort into things like "reforming" the Democratic Party under Howard Dean, simplistically focusing on whether Bush is crazy or not, demanding the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, and trying to get at the truth about who outed Valerie Plame (it was, in essence, Robert Novak).

Without a Leftist movement unified by values and principles driving positive change toward a a truly democratic society, our voices shouting for ending US imperialism, redefining our foreign "national interests", achieving economic equity for all, challenging corporate fascism, and non-aggressively supporting peace will all go unheard, except by us in our own echo chamber.

This "Left" of which I speak must answer some hard questions. Are we truly antiwar, or just anti-this-war? Are we really willing to sacrifice the comfort that the capitalist system has given us? Do we any longer have the skills and heart it will take to bring the Left together and form a true and effective Third Party alternative? Can we build a tolerant spiritual movement to absorb and/or replace the intolerant religious fanaticism that still grips much of the country? Do we have a clear strategy to return our military home from hundreds of bases to be a truly defensive force? How will we disband the military-industrial-academic oligarchy; return stolen land to the people; create a really representative, accountable government; prioritize our objectives and actions intelligently, refusing to be held hostage by issues subordinate to the long-term goals of the movement?

So many questions. So much work. So little time.

[also posted at P! and American Samizdat]

I live in bright red state and neither Senator is up for re-election. My congressman is a middle of the road classic white liberal running against an absolute idiot who also happens to be black.

The November Surprise predicted in the title will be little, if any, surprise at all: the colors of the graphic may change from red to blue in some states, but there will be absolutely no other change. None. Nada. Ne Rien Pas. Nyet.

The black forces, eager to hide the pea under a different shell for awhile, have simply shifted the flow of money. The bucks are no longer funding Republican neoconservatives . . . now they're buying Democratic neoconservatives. The wars will not end. The march to war against other countries will not drop a step. The gap between rich and poor will not narrow. Tax breaks for the rich will not be repealed. Powerful people in Washington and in the churches will continue to put their hands where they shouldn't: in all sorts of forbidden cookie jars, not to mention chemical stashes.

That The Prince of Darkness has repudiated Bush's invasion of Iraq (implementing The prince's policies), that the military media is calling for Rummy's head (or whatever) mean nuttin' hunny.

The MSM has been given permission to refocus the sheep. "24" may not have another season; "Law and Order" may shrink down to "SVU" and "CCP" (Corporate Creep Patrol).

During VietNam, Country Joe sang, "What are fightin' for?" And now I wail, "What are we votin' for?" . . . [more at P!]

Imagine that you are a cinderblock. Imagine that all of us Americans are each a cinderblock. And that we are part of a wall. We are stuck in that wall, unable to move, unable to escape.

The mortar binding us all together in this impenetrable wall is an iron-like mixture . . . of lies. We are all bricks in a wall of lies. It's too late to opt out of being a part of the wall - we're already there. In fact, we've become so embedded in the wall, that we're unable to struggle for one tiny nanometer of wiggle room.

We are the wall, impervious, impenetrable. Those of us bricks who do see and hear the truth are unable to act on it. We're stuck.

We haven't always been the wall. But the wall is, in truth, older than we can remember. It certainly wasn't built by the Bush Administration, although they have contributed steely strength to the mortar of lies. The Doubleduh-Cheney Gang would not have been able to perpetrate such lies if the wall was not already fully in place . . . [continue at P!]

Oh how I've agonized and remonstrated, wailed and gnashed, shook my poor, tired rhetorical finger in your faceless mugs. If I were to lay awake at night obsessorating (sorry, George) about something, that something would be the dreaded "third party" monster lurking behind the closet door or under the futon.

I actually don't toss and turn about it, but Pliva, Astze, and Wyeth are responsible for that, rather than any left-handed, enlightened political leaders. Um, so maybe they should be our third party? Well, since they and their pharma phriends already own a sizable stable of both elephants and donkies, that ho won't stroll. Sigh.

I'm not, of course, a learned political analyst, 'though I do play one here, so I'm not going to forward a complex and formidable theory as to why we remain stuck, at least at the presidential and congressional level, with just the Dumbocrats and Repugnantcans. Nor will I even mention the argument that these are not really two, but actually only one entity. God forbid. There are really only two factors: stupidity and laziness. How else to explain the Left's reliance on "reforming" the Blue Party through Howard "The Scream" Dean? If you look in the dictionary for the definition of "boondoggle" you get a pic of "Wowie" Howie hiding under a desk with the Illuminati symbol on it. 'Course, this is what the Dumbs have always done best . . . identify and espouse the least effective option, then shoot absolutely everyone involved with it. But I digress. Or do I? [more at P!]