Cross-Posted @ http://www.standingbeforethefire.com

As is the tradition on MLK day, we will hear politicians invoke his name in honor of his contribution to our nation. All of these politicians now decry segregation and support the civil rights act. Hence, many of them completely miss the significance of Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King was about standing up for the opressed, not when it is easy to do so, but when it is hard. Its pretty easy now to celebrate the end of segregation, only a tiny sliver of the population would support going back to the days of Jim Crow. MLK was much more then just an advocate for equality among the races. He advocated religious tolerance, protested against the Vietnam war, advocated for civil liberties, human rights, and thought America's next great challenge was fighting poverty.

Today, we will hear the likes of Senator McCain invoke the name of MLK, he who says he wont vote someone of a different religion, who zealously supports the Iraq war, who would rather keep the health care profit system in place then cover everybody, and who voted against the creation of MLK day, because he didn't understand the importance of MLK at the time, kind of like he doesn't understand economics now.

We will Mike Huckabee invoke the name of MLK, obsessive supporter of the confederate flag, a man who couldn't help but point out to evangelicals in Iowa that he was one of them, subtly pointing out that Romney was another. When he go to South Carolina, he did away with the implicit bigotry in favor of the explicit kind, fervently attacking gay Americans in the south, similar to the way the George Wallace's of the the world attacked blacks 40 years ago.

We will hear the anti-civil libertarian, Rudy Giuliani, who wants to lock up people with no legal recourse, as long as they are declared "enemy combatants," invoke the name of MLK.
I could go on, I wont(well, maybe I will later), got other stuff to do. Hate to be so divisive on MLK day, but, someone has to point these things out.

Although I don't have a vote in tomorrow's primary and the candidate will likely be chosen by the time the PA primary rolls around, I think it is high time I divulge to the masses who I am supporting for President. My choice is Senator Obama. Some are concerned about his lack of experience, he has only been a senator for two years. This is hogwash. He is smartest kid in the room, for whom further experience sitting with the wise men of the Senate is unnecessary. His experience is vast and expansive, from being the editor of the Harvard law review, signifying he was the smartest kid at the best law school in the country, a feat that shows an accomplishment of substance, unlike an accomplishment of theater, like getting oneself reelected. From there he was an educator as a constitutional law professor. A president who understands and respects the constitution is something this nation needs now more then ever. His experience as a community organizer has given him an insight into the challenges the most downtrodden communities in our nation face. Also something this nation desperately needs after six years of a concerted effort by the current administration to redistribute money from the poor and middle class to the rich.

Most of all, Senator Obama showed what his rivals Senator Edwards and Clinton lacked, courage. It is easy to oppose the Iraq war in 2007, most of the nation believes the war was a mistake and that American troops should be withdrawn. It easy to forget how hungry for war this nation was in 2003. The public overwhelmingly thought invading Iraq was a good idea and french fries were being renamed freedom fries. The media was filled with hawkish reporters and fake intelligence, stories of Iraqis greeting Americans as liberators and Iraqi oil revenue paying for the were taken seriously. Bush and his cadre of fools were not seen as the incompetent fools they are, but were portrayed by the media as tough minded wise men rising to the occasion. Those against the war were branded fools at best and at worst traitorous. It was a time when the nation desperately needed leadership from Senators Clinton and Edwards. Their nation needed them to stand up to the lies, distortions, and fear mongering manipulation that was not only leading the military into Iraq, but leading the nation away from reason and into hysterical madness. Senators Edwards agitated for the war, while Hilary Clinton remained silent. Both voted to give President Bush authority to invade Iraq. Meanwhile, an unknown Illinois State Senator, with ambitions of running for the Senate, gave a speech at an anti-war rally fiercely criticizing the impending war. Although his impact was small, he did the right thing, throwing water instead of fire on the flame of madness. That is what America needs in its next President. A President who is selfless, who will do what is best for his nation and not what is best for himself.

Pleas visit http://www.standingbeforethefire.com

Cross Posted @ http://www.standingbeforethefire.com

From Today's Washington Post  <In one of his longer ruminations, in May 2004, Rumsfeld considered whether to redefine the terrorism fight as a "worldwide insurgency." The goal of the enemy, he wrote, is to "end the state system, using terrorism, to drive the non-radicals from the world." He then advised aides "to test what the results could be" if the war on terrorism were renamed< </p>

End the state system? What? How could terrorism end the state system? I'm not minimizing the threat of terrorism, they are a threat to kill innocent people, but they don't threaten the existence of any state, let alone the "State System." They have no Army, Navy, or Airforce, and very little if any military equipment. Nor have they exhibited the desire to end the existence of states. Rumsfeld wanted his fellow citizens to be irrationally afraid in a desperate attempt to increase the popularity of the war the incompetently managed. In his mind the ends justified the means, but the effect of an irrationally terrified population is worse then the consequences of not achieving his military ends, which won't be achieved anyways.

Cross posted @ http://wwww.standingbeforethefire.com

Tomorrow congress is holding a hearing on the Time-Warner written legislation that redistributed postal taxes away from magazines with large circulations to independent magazines with smaller circulations. This has the effect of stifling the free market and silencing magazines that are not owned by large corporations, since the large tax hike will put many independent magazines out of business. These independent magazines have traditionally not only been important watchdogs on government actions, but also on large corporations, such as Time-Warner. Its no wonder why wanted this legislation passed. Just to emphasize how ridiculous this rule is, it's the equivalent of having people pay a smaller % of their wages to the government the more money they make.

Please sign this petition.  http://action.freepress.net/campaign/pos talnation

Call your congressman and Senators. Enough political pressure can get a new bill passed. Just don't expect to hear Wolf Blitzer talking about it on "The situation Room."

Cross posted @ http://www.standingbeforethefire.com

The President's veto of 35 billion dollars over 5 years for children's health care is amazing considering his signing of Medicare part D, at a cost of 700 Billion dollars over 10 years (Much of it corporate welfare to big pharma). Is it really more important that we help old people, who have already enjoyed 60-90 years on earth, get prescription drugs then expand the SCHIP program, at 1/10th of the cost? This is the same president who signed the 2002 farm bill, which results in  farming subsidies of 25 billion a year, subsidies which mostly went to big agriculture. This makes the veto seem perplexing, unless one considers the lack of corporate welfare in this bill. Bush is the biggest spender in the White House since Lyndon Johnson. Unlike Johnson, his spending is not intended to improve social welfare but to improve the corporate welfare of big business. The "Conservative" movement in America no longer advocates small government. That movement is dead and buried and has been replaced with a philosophy of crony capitalism. The movement now is determined to transform spending on social welfare to spending on corporate welfare. Everyone should stop pretending the modern day republican party has any association with the idea of small or limited government. What it has morphed into is much scarier.

Cross Posted at my new blog, http://www.standingbeforethefire.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/us/pol itics/25torture.html?ref=todayspaper

   "It depends on how it's done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it."

It depends on who does it? What? Why would it matter who does it? Does this mean that it is okay for the CIA to do it, but not for the military? Again, another Republican pretending not to know what Water boarding is. Under what circumstances can making someone think they are drowning to death not be torture?

Alot of people are confused by why Rudy is leading in all the GOP Presidential polls with his long history of being pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-gay rights. Other then the fact that he is changing his position on these issues to one extent or another, what I gather Republicans love about Rudy is that he is the most authoritarian of all the candidates. He is the most pro war of the all the Republican candidates( no easy feat), Believes the President should be able to deny any American the right to habeas corpus, and supports "enhanced interrogation." The authoritarian right has found its candidate.

Last night the Republican candidates advocated privatizing social security or as Mike Huckabee calls it "personalizing" social security. The idea of putting money in the social security treasury into low risk index funds instead of merely putting it into a bank account may be a good idea(I will post on the that topic at some point). What is a terrible idea is creating millions of individual accounts, just so people can decide between extremely similar index funds and have the emotional satisfaction of being in control of they're own retirement money. The cost of making the transition to private accounts would be somewhere between 1-2 trillion dollars, not to mention the costs of continually managing these accounts, which would be around 1 percent of the returns. Are these costs really necessary just so people can have the sunny feeling of being in control of their own retirement money?

Those who make more money pay more into the system, and therefore will have more to invest.They will be able to absorb the management/loss of benefits costs better then those who make less money. So those who least need social security will benefit most from privatization. Those who make very little would be the least likely to make enough to offset the cost of the loss of benefits and management fees. Social security was a program created to reduce the high level of elderly people who lived in poverty. If investing the money is a such a good idea, why not just invest the money without creating individualized accounts? The whole point of the program is to reduce poverty among the elderly. This is why it is a bad idea to create a system where those who make the least amount of money are the most likely not to make enough investment return to make up for the benefit cuts and management fees.

Cross posted @ http://www.standingbeforethefire.com. Please give my new blog a visit.

First, I find it pretty insulting that this right wing group deemed it's forum "the values voters forum," as if those who disagree don't have any values. Ah, I regress before I begin. Staying focused was never one of my strong points.

This Fred Thompson quote exposes the Republican presidential candidates pandering to religious voters pretty well.

"I would go into the Oval Office and close the door and pray for the wisdom to know what was right, and I would pray for the strength to do what is right."

What is the point of closing the door if your going to tell everyone that you are praying in private (in order to convince primary voters to vote for you)! The point of praying in private is to keep it private!

Or does Mr. Thompson think God is more likely to hear him from the Oval Office? Is there a direct line to God there?

Matthew 6:6 "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly".

By Shut thy door I don't think it means tell millions of people you are going to shut the door and pray, then shut the door and pray.

As expected, Mr. Thompson got a huge ovation for his comments from the "values voters." These values voters should take a break from politics and read the book they claim to be following.