You're right, the Fairness Doctrine is crap.

I read a blog recently that denounced the Fairness Doctrine as being crap. You know, you're right. I mean, listen to this BS:

"Until the mid-1980s, a Federal Communications Commission policy that required broadcasters to provide time for opposing viewpoints any time they broadcast an opinion supporting one side of a controversial issue." (MarketConscious.com)

You're right, that's so bad. Think of the possibilities--without the Fairness Doctrine, a person who had a hugely successful fund raising campaign could put their image out much more than their opposing candidate, thus increasing their chances of election. Put your face everywhere, your name everywhere, put out dozens of smear ads against your opponent--he or she doesn't stand a chance! And isn't that what America is all about?

No.

The basis for electing our leaders shouldn't be money or notoriety. It should be ideas and policy. Think about it--if you were asked the question, "Would you rather elect a leader based on their ideas or based on how much money they have?" it wouldn't be a question. You would elect a leader based on whether or not you agreed with their ideas. And there is only one way to figure out if a candidate agrees with your ideas: exposure to those ideas. There are two ways to accomplish this exposure.

1. The Fairness Doctrine

2. Reform campaign spending, including but not limited to spending caps, federal and state funding equally for both candidates, and campaign spending transparency.

People who oppose the Fairness Doctrine complain about freedom of the press. Wah wah wah, we're a conservative network and we don't want to run liberal ideas. Wah wah wah. Freedom of the press doesn't really apply here. The first amendment to the constitution says this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Note that is says abridging the freedom of the press. That means that, say, the Republicans can't take control of congress and prevent the press from printing stories with a liberal bias. Even though they did. But they didn't do it with an actual law, and they can't. That doesn't mean that they can't pass a law requiring the media to cover certain things, though. It means that they can't force the media not to cover something. That is what freedom of the press is about.

You jerks.

In case you haven't figured it out, I'm all in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. Why wouldn't you be? What does it hurt anybody to be able to be a little more open minded, to have to listen to both sides of an argument? My God--it might even help. Unless you know that you don't have any facts or reason supporting your argument--then I could see why you might not be in favor of the F.D. Good luck with that. We Americans may be a little more self-involved than politically involved, but as is evident by the last midterm election and Bush's approval rating, you can't run willy-nilly and expect us not to notice.

Dick Cheney, Meet the Constitution.

Seriously? Every day that passes brings something that takes me closer to the brink of total insanity.

Dick Cheney announced recently that, because his office is not part of the executive branch of government, the laws that apply to the executive branch don't apply to him. Uh, you know, when I was in high school, I didn't take advanced U.S. History; I couldn't fit it into my schedule between A.P Chem and Calculus. I took regular ol' U.S. History with the dumb kids and the fuckups and the slackers. We read every single goddamn word of the U.S. Constitution in that class, and if you asked anybody from that class who wasn't stoned at the time, I imagine they could answer in a multiple choice question which branch Cheney was elected to. (Probably not open-ended, this was high school.)

Even though Article II, Section I of the constitution says this:

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected . . . "

Cheney believes that his job falls under both branches because Article I, Section III says this:

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."

Yes, okay, Dick, you preside over the Senate. But you don't have a stupid vote! How can you consider yourself to be part of the lawmaking process without a vote? You only get to be the decider in the Senate if there's a gridlock; otherwise, I'm sure that the Senate is more than happy to tell you to go fuck yourself.

(Can I just interject here and say that this "fourth branch" idea is really tickling me? Not because I don't think it's not utterly fucking ridiculous, but that they seem to have based Cheney's entire right to secrecy on a Taco Bell marketing plan--the Fourthbranch, cheesy melty crunchy and spicy!)

So why is Cheney jumping over to the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution? (My God, now he spans THREE branches!) Because he wants to keep stuff secret from Americans. What kind of stuff? I don't know, it's a secret. I do know that one of his aides is currently being prosecuted for perjury and obstruction, and another one was convicted of more of the same in 2006. Could Cheney be far behind? God, let's hope not; he and W have gotten away with far too much for far too long. That is a great explanation for the secrecy, though--he's probably trying to prolong being put in jail as long as possible. By the way, this doesn't look suspicious at all, Dick. My aides keep getting arrested, so I'm going to hide all of my papers as being 'confidential' and make up a really fucking stupid excuse for why I don't have to show them. That doesn't have guilt written all over it, no sir.

Someone do me a favor and send this asshole to prison where he belongs.

What the democrats need to do.

Okay, obviously the Iraq war has turned into a bit of--shall we say, a quagmire? I know the Democrats all want us to pull out of Iraq, but at this point, we have a responsibility to them, as well as to our own futures. This may or may not be (we know it is) the work of an incredibly selfish, unfeeling, irresponsible man who duped us into supporting a personal war; however, we're in this now and the damage can't be undone.

So, Democrats, quit promising to pull out our troops, because what if you can't right away? Then Democrats lose face in the eyes of the American people, which is not good, since the Republican party has proven its untrustworthiness already. Plus, I like Democrats--I like democracy. I like freedom and equality. I don't want you guys to dig a hole that you can't get out of when you get elected.

Just try being honest. No spin, no promises you'll have to break later. Tell us that the war is a disaster. Tell us that there's no easy way out, but that you promise that you will work to find one instead of serving your own interests. Tell us what you would do first--what are the first priorities? Obviously, it's difficult to tell at home. We hear a truckload of news stories, and we don't really know what to believe anymore. Be honest. Be open. And above all, do what we want--don't forget who's running the show here. (That goes double for you, George W Fucko.)

We're already too alienated by an administration who doesn't give a shit about us. It's time to be real with the American people: we're like a woman who's been jilted by her lover, our trust must be earned back.

Bake Sales for Body Armor: The Assault on Reason

I just finished Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason. By 'just finished,' I mean I finished it a few days ago. I will say two things about Al Gore here and now: he is a brilliant man, and he has balls of steel.

The book, despite its depth, is not a difficult read; I like this, because it means more people will read it. (Also, because I have a very short attention span when it comes to dense books. I'm not stupid, I just can't pay attention long enough to cut through jargon, pretentiousness, and verbosity.) Al Gore is very clear about the problems facing American democracy today; he's also very clear about the root of the problems facing America today. He lays a lot of problems at the feet of the Republican party. Get this, though--he does it without petty name-calling and snide shrewishness. Are you taking notes, Mr. Hannity and Mr. O'Reilly? Mr. Gore lays out the facts as they are and draws conclusions based on evidence: leave the drama with your mama.

Mr. Gore details several problems in the book, one of which is the lack of communication between the government and the people. He says that television, the current most popular advertising medium, is a one-way communication device--which explains why people in Washington never hear me screaming when I watch C-Span. This undercuts the very foundation of democracy, to which two-way communication is crucial. As we've all seen in our lives, a relationship with a communication problem heads straight into the toilet, which is right about where we are now. The solution? The Internet--the great equalizer. Here, we are free to speak our minds, as long as the internet doesn't come under control of some faceless conglomerate who can control everything. (That means you, Time Warner.) We shall rebuild democracy in the blogosphere, huzzah!

Another problem is money--money, it's always money. We all know that Bush and Cheney are not running a government, they're running a racket. Mr. Gore has enough Washington connections and political knowledge to point out exactly how they're doing it. No, Mr. President, Iraq has no connections to Al Qaeda! What do you mean, look again? Wait, what are you doing with that steak knife? Wait!

With money there is always power, coupled together like a freak show; between the love of money and the love of power, our government is as corrupt as its been in a long time. I'm thinking worse than Nixon. To generously interpret and paraphrase a point from the book, you know the government doesn't give a damn about you when you have to hold bake sales for body armor.

If you don't believe what I say, go to the source--read the book. I tell you now that if you don't walk away from this book practically weeping (or actually weeping, I know I got choked up) for what America should be, then I better not ever hear you call yourself a patriot, because you don't know what America's all about. You can also take that yellow ribbon magnet off of your Hummer.

Lord, don't they help themselves, y'all.

We've all heard the song "Fortunate Son" by CCR. It's still a great political statement, still relevant, still true. I'm thinking in particular of this line:

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand; Lord, don't they help themselves.

This explains exactly what I've been saying for a long time: George W Bush doesn't understand typical Americans because he's never been one.

Compare George W Bush to my favorite president, Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was born to the wife of a traveling salesman--if you remember Willy Loman or Dan's father on Roseanne, you know that traveling salesmen aren't known for being particularly wealthy. He grew up poor in Arkansas; his mother remarried a man, Roger Clinton Sr., and Bill remembers him as being an abusive gambler. He had to work hard to get where he wanted to go, just like the rest of us did. When he made policy for America, he made it for Americans.

Now, hold that up next to George Bush's early life. Bush comes from money. Bush's father comes from money. Who was around to teach GWB what it was like to be a real American, to have to scrap and struggle to get ahead in the world? This translates to his policymaking. George W Bush doesn't look out for the middle-to-lower class because he can't fathom what life is like for us. He's never had to struggle for anything in his life, including winning an election. He pretends to be a Godly person because he thinks that Americans love God more than anything, but when pressed, members of his 'bible boot camp' that he supposedly did can't say anything about the books they studied 'intensely.' Either they're not very bright or they didn't study it very thoroughly. My guess is that they went quail hunting instead.

George W Bush may be our president, but he works for the American people. He needs to make policies that make sense to us, that help us, that are in our favor and not his own. And please, write to your Republican congressmen and tell them this--they are just as much at fault, as are the Democrats for not being stronger and not being more outspoken about the problems in Washington. We're all in this together, and working together, we can fix it.

Homeland Security Spending Bill: Democrats just want to spend all your money.

Republicans and Democrats are in a deadlock over the Homeland Security spending bill that is being debated in the house right now. I was watching C-Span earlier, and the Republicans announced that the Democrats had "capitulated" and "surrendered" to their demands that the earmarks be made transparent. They slighted the Democrats for running on a platform of transparency and then creating 'secret slush funds' for spending that wouldn't be revealed until the vote.

The Democrats, on the other hand, say that they have received in excess of 30,000 requests for earmarked spending. The Washington Post says this:

"To give himself [David R Obey] and committee staff members more time to screen them, he plans to drop the earmarks into the bills when they move to the House-Senate conference committees before the August break, giving members and the public a month to review and question them."

A month, eh? Does this sound like 'secret slush funds' to you? Does this sound like non-transparency to you? To me, it sounds like someone putting a wrench in the gears to prevent progress.

This kind of political discourse makes me ill. The Democrats are trying to make room in the budget for more border troops, education, health care, and more personnel; the Bush administration calls this spending "irresponsible and excessive" (Yahoo! News). The White House has promised to veto any budget that goes over Bush's spending cap; President Bush has never before vetoed a budget. Could this be because Congress is no longer cowed to his special interests? By the way, "irresponsible and excessive" spending could have been cut before the projected $4 trillion deficit.

With 30,000 requests for earmarked spending and a budget that will certainly be vetoed if it goes over Bush's request, wouldn't you want to review all of the options and narrow them down to be within the spending limit? Let's say you have $500 to spend on Christmas gifts and 50 people to buy for. At $10 a present, you might have to re-examine your list and determine who just gets a Christmas card--unless you want to surprise your husband, wife, or parents with a gift basket from the dollar store. Aww, a badly painted ceramic monkey and some paper clips--you shouldn't have, honey. Really.

Do the Democrats just want to spend all your money? No! That money is being put toward things that we need. We do have to realize as Americans, however, that we can either keep our money or we can have government funding for education, health care, social security, environmental agencies, food inspection and regulation, and the myriad of other things we have come to depend on our government to provide. It's not cheap to run a country. Add a tax cut to an expensive war, and we have ourselves a 4 trillion dollar deficit. Was anybody particularly unhappy paying taxes under Clinton? Or were we proud of our country, proud of our surplus, proud of the goodwill from other nations, and happy that we could all work toward a greater prosperity?

I was proud. I was happy. I was hopeful. And I think the rest of America was, too. Think back to the good times, and think about now. We do need to cut the 'irresponsible and excessive' spending in Washington; we can start by pressing our Republican leaders to work with Democrats for the good of Americans and stop wasting money on wars we can't win.

Bush is too old and too rich to care about 'non-renewable'--but what about us?

In 2003, Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post wrote this:

"Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents.

The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors."

Are you shitting me? Halliburton--and other private sector organizations--is funding our military? If you have never undertaken a project which requires an investor, you may know that, often, with investors comes some relinquishment of control. We see it here--if, say, Halliburton contributes to the war effort in bucks, they get rewarded in kind with secured contracts solely for them to recoup their expenses. This mixing of the government and the private sector bothers me intensely. It puts the needs of the few over the needs of the many, and it also grants control to unelected corporate CEOs that the American people haven't approved to help control any aspect of our government. In capitalism, we would have a choice on how to spend our money, and here, we do not.

Something else that pisses me off--this week, our Democrat-controlled congress is beginning the push for moving to renewable and cleaner fuels. Okay, that part doesn't piss me off. I'm all for it. Even though it is going to take time to push through all of the whining interest groups who don't want to cut their multi-billion dollar profits for the good of the environment, I'm glad the good fight has begun. Then, Edmund L. Andrews wrote this in the New York Times:

"The clash between rival industry agendas was apparent on Monday. Fifteen trade associations and companies from the food industry warned senators in a letter that heavy government subsidies for ethanol would push up prices for corn and other feed, and thus the cost of food."

Gah!

If we farmed in a sustainable way, there would be no need to use so damn much corn and feed for the industrial torture farms where animals are currently being raised in squalid conditions. We could then redirect the corn to making ethanol, and I could start eating meat again! The current raising of livestock for food is incredibly, incredibly inhumane (read Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation for details, you'll never look at meat the same--or head over to PETA's website, I hate PETA but video evidence doesn't usually lie); if we could fix that and have everyone raising livestock in a sustainable way, the price of free range organic meat would have to go down because of the boost in supply. Who knows, in a perfect world, it may eliminate or reduce meat waste, as well--if the supply is somewhat leaner, you probably won't see "Manager's Special" stickers nearly as often! The meat would also be a lot healthier, with no antibiotics, less disease--oh bliss!

I could have a steak!

Listen, folks: a lot of decisions are made in congress due to special interest groups lobbying their cases. Unfortunately, lobbying their cases often doesn't coincide with lobbying what's right for Americans. Unfortunately, it also includes a lot of special interest groups paying millions to disabuse Americans of the notion that our environment is in danger; they pay millions to promote the idea that non-renewable resources are, despite the fact that they're finite and contribute to our climate crisis, the way to go because alternatives just won't work; they pay millions to keep our government officials in their pockets and to deceive us about their real motives, which of course, always, come down to profit margins. Are we going to let these people dupe us into believing that "science" and "facts" are really just left-wing propaganda to keep them from making money? I sincerely hope not.

When you see a scientific report on TV, consider where the payroll for that study came from. Did it come from independent scientists, or from a major company whose interests are directly connected to the outcome of that 'study'? Therein lies the truth.

The dependence on oil is making America a fuel junkie of epic proportions, especially since we now consume so much fuel with our SUVs, Hummers, constant commutes and driving. We're flying more, we're traveling more, and we're using more energy in general than we ever have before. It's time to start turning to natural resources, because we can replant corn every year, but once our oil is gone, it is gone. Let's make the transition while we still have enough oil to carry us through the changeover to sustainable energy. It just makes so damn much sense.