Conservatives fought AGAINST the American Dream
June 20th, 2010Conservatives voted against 40-hour work-weeks, claiming that workers weren’t working enough.
Conservatives voted against weekends off, declaring that workers would become shiftless.
Conservatives voted against paid vacations, declaring that workers didn’t deserve them.
Conservatives voted against child labor laws, predicting the doom of American manufacturing.
Conservatives voted against work safety laws, warning mass corporate bankruptcies.
Conservatives voted against unemployment insurance, saying it made workers lazy.
Conservatives voted against unemployment insurance extensions, accusing the workers of stealing.
Conservatives voted against workman’s compensation, accusing workers of scamming the bosses.
Conservatives voted against unions, claiming they were communist plots.
Conservatives voted against social security, claiming we could never afford it.
Conservatives voted against Medicare & Medicaid, claiming we could never afford them.
Conservatives voted against abolishing slavery, claiming the US economy couldn’t survive without it.
Conservatives voted against regulating Wall Street in the 1920’s, claiming banks couldn’t compete.
Conservatives voted against regulating Wall Street in the 1990’s, claiming banks couldn’t compete.
Conservatives voted against regulating Wall Street in 2010, claiming banks couldn’t compete.
Conservatives voted against giving women the vote, predicting the destruction of family and country.
Conservatives voted against legal abortion, calling it murder.
Conservatives voted against birth control, calling it murder.
Conservatives voted against sex education, calling it license to fuck.
Conservatives voted against giving black Americans the vote, fearing former slaves would get power and rape them.
Conservatives voted against integrating the military, warning that doing so would damage white morale.
Conservatives voted against allowing military women to serve alongside men, warning that doing so would damage morale.
Conservatives voted against allowing gays to serve openly in the military, warning that doing so would damage morale.
Conservatives voted against auto safety laws, warining they would ruin the industry.
Conservatives voted against teaching evolution, claiming God made everything in six 24-hour days.
Conservatives voted against WWII, declaring Hitler good for Europe (yes, it’s true, almost 100 Congressmen and Senators).
Conservatives voted against segregation, warning the races could never mix.
Conservatives voted against equal rights for all citizens, pointing out that the Bible made some more equal than others.
Conservatives voted against regulating coal mines, saying that the mines are safe enough for that lot.
Conservatives voted against Miranda rights for all suspects, insisting you wouldn’t be a suspect if you weren’t guilty.
Conservatives voted against leaving Vietnam, claiming that an industrial nation really, really could beat an insurgency.
Conservatives voted against leaving Iraq, claiming that an industrial nation really, really could beat an insurgency.
Conservatives voted against leaving Afghanistan, promising that America can beat an insurgency where nobody ever has.
Conservatives voted against environmental regulations, promising companies would police themselves.
Conservatives voted against reducing nukes, saying more is better.
Conservatives voted against emissions caps, saying global warming was a hoax.
Conservatives voted against higher mileage standards, warning such constraints would cripple the car industry.
Conservatives voted against marijuana, predicting the complete moral decay of the country because of it.
Conservatives voted against separation of church and state, claiming America was founded by born-again Christians.
Conservatives voted against gay marriage, warning the destruction of the family.
Conservatives voted against tobacco prevention/treatment, because they owned the tobacco companies.
Conservatives voted against campaign finance reform, calling it violation of corporate personhood.
Conservatives voted against public healthcare, calling it impossible.
Conservatives voted against universal health insurance, calling it socialism.
Conservatives voted against maternity leave, saying a woman’s place is in the home, anyway.
Conservatives voted for killing the Indians, insisting it was God’s will.
Conservatives voted for lynching, claiming a need to keep the nigras in their place.
Conservatives voted for the death penalty, promising it would lower violent crime.
Conservatives voted for corporate war profiteering, because they are the war profiteers.
Conservatives voted for Joe McCarthy’s commie & homo witch hunts, accusing even Eisenhower of being a Commie.
Conservatives voted for de-regulating banks, insisting everyone would benefit from the free market.
Conservatives voted for de-regulating public utilities, insisting the free market would lower prices.
Conservatives voted for de-regulating polluters, insisting they would volunteer to regulate themselves.
Conservatives voted for opening national parks to oil and gas extraction, insisting this would make us free from foreign energy dependence.
Conservatives voted for scrapping civil liberties after 9/11, claiming that the Constitution put the country in danger.
Conservatives voted for privatizing the military, because they are the owners of private mercenaries.
Conservatives voted for corporate personhood, so that money could become free speech.
Conservatives voted for unlimited corporate electioneering, so they could more easily buy political office.
Conservatives voted for torture, claiming we’re not safe without it.
Conservatives voted for 13 trillion dollars in 0% loans, before Obama was even elected, saying the banks were too big to fail.
Conservatives voted for staying in office even if you’re busted for illicit sex or political corruption, unless you’re a Democrat.
Conservatives voted against limiting offshore drilling, so oil companies could make more profits.
Conservatives voted against forcing oil companies to clean up their own mess, because that’s what taxpayers are for.
Conservatives voted against extending unemployment benefits, because if you’re unemployed, you must be a lazy bastard.
Conservatives voted against social welfare for poor people, warning that it would reinforce laziness.
Conservatives voted for corporate welfare for rich companies, claiming it would create jobs.
TeaGOP, Hitler Obsession & Christianity?
May 31st, 2010
The Right used to soil themselves whenever Democrats pointed out similarities between GOP strategies and those of the Nazis. With the Dems back in the White House, it’s the TGOP who can’t stop equating Democrats, liberals and progressives with a godless, leftist Hitler.
All spin aside, Hitler’s fundamental attitudes and behaviors demonstrate he would have been largely indistinguishable from most of today’s TGOP. Hear’s what I mean; Herr Hitler:
- shouted a lot;
- urged revolution against a traitorous government;
- ran with a violent, poorly-educated crowd;
- saw enemies of the country everywhere;
- hated liberals, communists, and socialists;
- crushed unions…
- hated feminists, too;
- blamed immigrants (especially Jewish and dark-skinned ones) for most of his country’s woes;
- condemned homosexuals;
- was anti-abortion and anti-birth control;
- despised multi-culturalism;
- considered civil rights an obstacle to social order;
- thought modern culture was Satan’s plot against society;
- was vehemently pro-war and pro-death penalty;
- opposed the super-rich while secretly relying on their support;
- promised a return to the former glory of his country, through violence if necessary;
- regularly labeled himself and his country Christian, and invoked Christ and God in public.
What was that last bit, Adolf Hitler tight with the Lord? Wasn’t he the atheistic enemy of Jesus and religion?
See for yourself. The following quotes are lifted from various Hitler speeches, 1930-1943:
“But there is something else I believe, that there is a God…And this God again has blessed our efforts.”
“If positive Christianity means love of one’s neighbor, i.e. the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians.”
“We must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ’s words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers!”
“My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter… I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… As a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”
“We must turn…away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid hypocrisy of personal arrogance.”
“We, therefore, go our way into the future with the deepest belief in God. Would all we have achieved been possible had God not helped us? I know that the fruits of human labor are hard-won and transitory if they are not blessed by the All-Powerful. Work such as ours, which has received the blessings of the Almighty, can never again be undone by mere mortals.”
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”
“We have been conducting a fearless campaign against that…which is threatening our entire nation, our culture, our art, and our public morals.”
“We have made an end of denials of God and the tearing down of religion.”
“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty… I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
“Once the mercy of God shined on us, but we were not worthy of His mercy. Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell… In this deep misery we again learned to pray.”
“The youth will, with loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the Devil in their hearts.”
“God does not make cowardly nations free.”
“I would like to thank the Almighty for choosing me, of all people, to be allowed to wage this battle…”
“And so long as we are loyal, honest, and ready to fight, so long as we believe in our great work and do not capitulate, we shall also in the future have the blessing of God.”
“Our prayer is: Lord God, let us never hesitate, let us never play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.”
“Lord, grant to our people peace at home, and grant and preserve to them peace from foreign enemies!”
“Even the Devil can appear as an Angel of Light”
Does Hitler sound like a godless Lefty to you? He speaks native Christian better than many of the Tea-Bigots themselves, doesn’t he? (I don’t want to consider the full implication of that)
The Difference Between Science and Religion
May 10th, 2010A TeaGOP, pitching the point that science is just another religion, declared that science, like religion, also has a history of being wrong. He specifically referred to Eugenics (selective breeding of humans) and Phrenology (divining individual and group character by studying and cataloging physical traits).
Ok, sure. Scientists are people, too, and are subject to all sorts of religious or political beliefs that get in the way of the scientific search for truth. Such scientists often twist or otherwise misinterpret new data, theories, etc, to fit their own agendas or preconceived notions.
Popular 19th-century distortions of Darwin’s evolution resulted in Eugenics, social Darwinism (survival-of-the-fittest capitalism) and phrenology. All these were considered valid scientific disciplines in their day, and accorded a high degree of credibility.
The scientific method, however, insists on repeated verification of data and extensive peer review. Eventually those theories were proven unviable, and only the most ignorant of crackers gives them any credence today.
In the realm of religion, however, the more evidence against a thing, the more a test of faith it is to believe in it, and the more intensely religion exhorts the devotee to cling to it. In turn, the believer is promised, and expects, a greater reward for staying ‘faithful’ to it. The basic foundation of religious belief is therefore antithetical, not similar, to scientific enquiry.
In a toe-to-toe battle with reality-based science, religion loses every time. It knows this, and therefore must cast itself as outside science, even outside objective reality, because it cannot survive when faced with either.
Where Was the TeaGOP Then?
April 5th, 2010The TeaGOP have ferociously attacked Obama for lending the banks $700 billion in TARP funds, even though the bailout was promised by Bush before Obama was even elected, and most of the loans have since been repaid.
But where were the TeaBots in 2008, when Bush gave Wall Street nearly $8 trillion dollars in 0% interest loans, with no strings attached? We sure could have used a little “Don’t Tread on Me!” then, but not a peep from the patriots! Looks like giving free money to predatory capitalists is OK when a white boy does it.
Bush’s first no-strings giveaway to Wall Street pushed $2 trillion. The money went directly from the Federal Reserve to the banks, with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke promising transparency which he has ever since adamantly refused to provide:
“The Federal Reserve Refuses to ID Recipients of $2 Trillion”
“Nov. 10, 2008 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
“Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout [TARP] of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn’t require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.”
Bush’s second no-strings giveaway to Wall Street, arranged months before Obama took office, brought the total to over $7.7 trillion.
“U.S. Pledges Top $7.7 Trillion to Ease Frozen Credit
“Nov. 24, 2008 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.
“The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.”
Bush set up these deals at the end of his second term. The plan was that the GOP would blame the coming economic crash, which these loans were intended to avert, on the Democrats, setting the stage for a 2010 GOP comeback. This strategy was implemented by Fox News, and featured ”grass roots” activists, aka TeaBots, who were organized before Obama’s election by Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks.
But the rabidly anti-tax TeaBots are curiously unconcerned about this massive giveaway, another indication that their supporting interests are the same as those of the banks.
A Simple Illustration
Here’s how these lucrative Fed-to-bank loans play out in real life: Imagine I give you a trillion dollar loan. I make you promise that you’ll share this money with your poorer neighbors, but I charge you nothing for the loan, won’t make you tell me how you spend it, nor will I tell anyone else I gave it to you.
You do nothing with the money except put it in your bank account, where it earns 1/2 a percent interest compunded. How much profit do you earn the first quarter? Five billion dollars. In a year? 20 billion, plus an extra hundred or so million, due to compounding. Not bad for doing nothing. Free money.
Next, imagine that I allow you to invest this money anyway you want. You put it in energy and weapons stocks (with a few million dollar donations to war-mongering political candidates), and receive a modest 5% return. What’s that profit look like? Fifty billion dollars in one quarter, or two hundred billion dollars the first year–plus a few extra billion due to compounding. At this rate, in less than two years you could recoup the entire loss of the subprime mortgage market!
Good for you, and bad for everyone else. Though you promised you would, you refuse to share any of your free money, so few of those dollars ever make it back into the economy. The poorer neighbors you were supposed to help go belly up, and you then use your loan profits to scoop up their assets. Since I never told anyone I lent you the money, I can’t accuse you of breaking the terms of the deal, nor force you to give the money back, and nobody else is able to prosecute you for fraud.
If and when Congress ever gets me to fess up about my loan to you, you’ll have already shifted those earnings offshore and gone bankrupt to protect them–and maybe received taxpayer bailouts to start all over again. In the meantime, I’ll be replaced by someone who doesn’t know anything about our arrangement.
The Bushes gave away America’s money in other ways, too. Early in the Iraq war, for example, Bush sent nearly $10 billion of ”reconstruction money” to Iraq, which his commanding generals were to funnel to contractors. Billions of taxpayer dollars were stacked in neat piles on wooden palettes, wrapped in plastic and shipped in cargo containers aboard C130’s. All of that money disappeared without a trace, too! Again, not a whisper of protest from the TeaGOP.
Just how, in these circumstances, are the taxpayers are ever to be repaid? IMO, the plan all along was that they wouldn’t be. At any rate, we can’t expect help from the “anti-tax” crowd; looks like it really is racism, not anti-taxation, that drives the TeaBots after all.
“Like Teaching Your Dog to Drive…”
March 20th, 2010[UPDATE: For an even more comprehensive breakdown of 114 secret GOP valentines of the Obama Stimulus Bill, see this update at Think Progress]
“Charging them [the GOP] with hypocrisy, appealing to their better, more practical, more what‘s-best-for-the-country patriotic angels is like trying to teach your dog to drive…It wastes a lot of time. It won‘t work. And ultimately the dog comes out of the exercise less embarrassed for failing than you do for trying.”
Rachel Maddow, Feb 10, 2010
I want to BE Rachel Maddow. Below are excerpts from her 2.11.10 transcript, in which she shines a spotlight on 22 of the GOP white mice who opposed the Obama stimulus package in Washington, then claimed credit back home for jobs that the stimulus bill created:
MADDOW: If there‘s one thing that Republicans agree on now, it is that the stimulus is a bad, bad policy. It‘s a bad idea that does bad things. It‘s a bad president‘s bad way of making a bad economy more bad because he‘s bad. Stimulus bad.
Also? Stimulus good. What you‘re looking at here are pictures of the same Republicans who have trashed the stimulus as a bad, bad thing in their home districts taking credit for all the good things the stimulus has done.
That‘s Bobby Jindal there, governor of Louisiana who has railed against the stimulus, then gone around the state handing out big fake checks with his own name on them as if the money came from him instead of from the stimulus that he‘s been railing against.
Then, there‘s Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia. That‘s him getting all Publisher‘s Clearinghouse with a giant check for funds that he voted against and criticized as worst than worthless. He called the money and that check he‘s holding a boondoggle and a dismal failure.
And it‘s not just a couple of these guys who have been caught like this either. Republican John Mica of Florida trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district as “helping improve one of our key economic generators.”
Republican Frank Wolf of Virginia trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying, “We could use that money desperately. There are a lot of things up here that that money could be used for.”
Republican Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home state by attending the groundbreaking of a sewage treatment plant that it funded and praising the jobs that it would create in his district.
Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas trashed the stimulus, voted no, and praised its effect in her home state by saying this funding will spur growth in Texas communities.
Republican Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district as a great thing for this county. We‘re not accustomed to federal dollars in that magnitude finding their way to North Carolina.
Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri trashed the stimulus, voted no and then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would create jobs and ultimately spur economic opportunities.
Republican Joe Wilson of South Carolina, remember him? The “you lie” guy? He trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would provide jobs and investment in one of the poorer sections of that district.
Republican Senator Bob Bennett of Utah trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying said, the addition of federal funds would maximize the stimulative effect on the local economy.
Republican Pat Tiberi of Ohio trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would support businesses and jobs.
Republican Mary Bono Mack trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in her home district by saying the funding will provide much needed assistance.
Republican Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home state by saying that just one proposed stimulus-funded project in Nebraska would create 38 new jobs.
Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home state by highlighting a project he says would create over 200 jobs in the first year, and at least another 40 new jobs in the following years.
Republican John Linder of Georgia trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying the employment opportunities created by this program would be quickly utilized.
Republican Mike Castle of Delaware trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by sending out press releases touting how imperative those funds were.
You want to see Mike Castle of Delaware handing out one of those giant checks? Yes, as if he hadn‘t actually voted to kill the money that‘s in that check. Mike Castle is running for senator from Delaware now, presumably on the platform of being a giant hypocrite.
Republican Eric Cantor not only trashed the stimulus and voted no on it, he coordinated the feat of having all House Republicans vote against it. Then he held a job fair in his home district at which nearly which half of the companies who were at the job fair because they were in a position to hire have received stimulus funds.
Even John Boehner, leader of the House Republicans, who has led the trashing of the stimulus and voted no on it and who bragged so enthusiastically on Republicans in the House all voting against it.
When it came to his home district, John Boehner praised the federal funding for shovel-ready projects that will create much needed jobs.
Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of denying-global-warming fame – he trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised the effect in his home state by saying it would help spur additional economic growth.
Republican Jack Kingston of Georgia trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying these funds should help save or create local jobs.
Republican John Carter of Texas trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it was a victory for the economy in central Texas.
Republican Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would be great for employment in the area.
None of this is a secret, which is the most important thing to understand about it. Republicans right now do not care about policy. By which I mean, they will not vote for things that even they admit are good policies.
On policy terms, they have been caught bragging on the stimulus as good policy. I have no doubt that some of them think that health reform is good policy. We know they think things like a deficit commission or cap and trade or pay-go are good policy because they‘re on the record supporting them.
But they‘re not going to vote for them because – screw policy. Screw what even they believe is good for the country. Screw what even they believe is good for their own districts. They are not voting yes for even things that they agree with, for anything substantive.
They are not going to vote yes for anything substantive that this president supports. It‘s not going to happen. You‘re not going to earn Republican votes for a second stimulus, for example, by pointing out it‘s good policy that creates jobs. We know they already know that.
They concede that in their home districts and they are still not voting for it. And they are unembarrassed about this fact. They are not embarrassed. Charging them with hypocrisy, appealing to their better, more practical, more what‘s-best-for-the-country patriotic angels is like trying to teach your dog to drive.
It wastes a lot of time. It won‘t work. And ultimately the dog comes out of the exercise less embarrassed for failing than you do for trying. Grow up, Democrats. Face the music. Do it alone. You‘re the majority. Kill the filibuster if they won‘t let you use that majority. The country needs you to.
Now For Something Completely different
March 18th, 2010I spent the past two nights outside, viewing the galaxy and beyond with 20×80 astro-binoculars and Scott’s 6″ refractor. I so don’t want to think about politics right now; here in the real world, political ideas are smaller than molecules.
Check out this beautiful astro-photography from Austria. I saw each of these objects tonight. Except in my glass, they were mostly tiny, fuzzy blobs. The thrill is in hunting them, finding them, getting the best view of them, and then remembering how to find them later.
Tea-Bigots & Bestiality-Again!
March 16th, 2010As reported by AZ Central.com for Politico:
Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that the expansion of state laws allowing gay marriage could lead to people marrying horses.
Hayworth, during an interview with an Orlando, Fla., radio station explained: “You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage – now get this – it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy.’”
“Now how dangerous is that?” asked Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain from the right in Arizona’s GOP Senate primary.
“I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but…I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse.”
In typical Tea-Bigot fashion, Haworth is flat-out lying. The Massachusetts Supreme Court actually defined marriage as “the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others”, not the horse-apples he quoted about. At any rate, you really have to wonder about a guy who thinks the only thing preventing humans from marrying their favorite animals is a law.
Haworth might be distressed to learn that in the five years since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, it still retains the lowest divorce rate in the country, an achievement that dates back to 1940, if I’m not mistaken. And not a single case of a citizen marrying their horse (or any other of God’s creatures, either).
Jimmy Carter Saw Ahead
March 13th, 2010Roughly three decades ago, in April of 1977 and July of 1979, then-President Jimmy Carter addressed the dangers of U.S. reliance on foreign oil for meeting domestic energy needs. He began outlining the problem for an America still economically (and emotionally) smarting from the oil embargo of 1973.
Best-selling author Thom Hartmannwrites: “Carter’s speech drew a strong reaction from the Saudis and the oil industry. Think tanks soon emerged – many whose names are today familiar – to suggest there was really no energy problem, and they led the charge to establish a permanent right-wing media in the US. Within two years, Saudi citizen and oil baron Salem bin Laden’s sole US representative, James Bath, would funnel cash into the failing business of the son of the CIA’s former director, political up-and-comer George H. W. Bush. With that money from the representative of Osama Bin Laden’s half-brother, George Bush Jr. was able to keep afloat his Arbusto Oil Company. And he would be in the pocket of the bin Laden and Saudi interests for the rest of his life. But Carter was incorruptible.”
In his April 18, 1977 speech, Carter said:
“With the exception of preventing war, this [the energy crisis] is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes…It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century. We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.
“The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out… Our nation’s independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained.
“The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind’s previous history.
“Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden… One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years. Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person–the driver–while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste. We can continue using scarce oil and natural gas to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.
“We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country… There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.
“Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear… If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.”
After spending the next couple of years initiating the national strategic petroleum reserve, creating gasohol and solar power development programs, and insulating millions of American homes and offices, President Carter spoke about domestic energy again, on July 15, 1979:
“I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977–never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks, right now, and then reversed as we move through the 1980s… In addition, we need to immediately begin to develop a long-range strategy to move beyond fossil fuel.
“I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation’s first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.”
Unfortunately for all of us, and fortunately for the giant oil and energy companies, the oil-money-soaked Ronald Reagan won the Presidency in 1980. Among the first of his official acts was removing Carter’s solar panels from the White House roof, and quickly reversing most of the previous administration’s conservation and alternative energy policies.
Hatmann writes more about the Carter energy legacy: “Today, despite the best efforts of the Bushies, the bin Ladens, and the rest of the oil industry, Carter’s few surviving initiatives have borne fruit.
“It is now more economical to build power generating stations using wind than using coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. When amortized over the life of a typical mortgage, installing solar power in a house in most parts of the US is cheaper than drawing power from the grid; ironically, Shell and British Petroleum are among the world’s largest manufacturers of solar photovoltaic panels, which can now even be used as roofing shingles. “
Another Conspiracy Verified
March 12th, 2010In a presentation to my high school critical thinking class, I linked this story–about how a bizarre American intelligence operation might have caused an entire French village to go crazy in the early 1950’s–to several other longstanding CIA conspiracy theories.
The teacher got very agitated, and stated that critical thinking needing to involve actual thinking, and that any mention of CIA conspiracy exposed a lack of thinking (because everybody knows America doesn’t do that stuff). He sternly asked me to sit down, and admonished the class to beware the pseudo-intellectual seduction of conspiracy theory.
Since then, many of those little conspiracy gems have been verified, and the 2007 FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) release of the CIA’s “Family Jewels” documents validated a butt-load more. I haven’t seen that teacher since graduation, and wonder if he ever loosened his resistance to conspiracy theory.
But about that crazy French village…
French bread spiked with LSD in CIA experiment
A 50-year mystery over the ‘cursed bread’ of Pont-Saint-Esprit, which left residents suffering hallucinations, has been solved after a writer discovered the US had spiked the bread with LSD as part of an experiment.
Telegraph Uk; Henry Samuel in Paris
Published: 7:00AM GMT 11 Mar 2010
An American investigative journalist has uncovered evidence suggesting the CIA peppered local food with the hallucinogenic drug LSD
In 1951, a quiet, picturesque village in southern France was suddenly and mysteriously struck down with mass insanity and hallucinations. At least five people died, dozens were interned in asylums and hundreds afflicted.
For decades it was assumed that the local bread had been unwittingly poisoned with a psychedelic mould. Now, however, an American investigative journalist has uncovered evidence suggesting the CIA peppered local food with the hallucinogenic drug LSD as part of a mind control experiment at the height of the Cold War.
The mystery of Le Pain Maudit (Cursed Bread) still haunts the inhabitants of Pont-Saint-Esprit, in the Gard, southeast France.
On August 16, 1951, the inhabitants were suddenly racked with frightful hallucinations of terrifying beasts and fire.
One man tried to drown himself, screaming that his belly was being eaten by snakes. An 11-year-old tried to strangle his grandmother. Another man shouted: “I am a plane”, before jumping out of a second-floor window, breaking his legs. He then got up and carried on for 50 yards. Another saw his heart escaping through his feet and begged a doctor to put it back. Many were taken to the local asylum in strait jackets.
Time magazine wrote at the time: “Among the stricken, delirium rose: patients thrashed wildly on their beds, screaming that red flowers were blossoming from their bodies, that their heads had turned to molten lead.”
Eventually, it was determined that the best-known local baker had unwittingly contaminated his flour with ergot, a hallucinogenic mould that infects rye grain. Another theory was the bread had been poisoned with organic mercury.
However, H P Albarelli Jr., an investigative journalist, claims the outbreak resulted from a covert experiment directed by the CIA and the US Army’s top-secret Special Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
The scientists who produced both alternative explanations, he writes, worked for the Swiss-based Sandoz Pharmaceutical Company, which was then secretly supplying both the Army and CIA with LSD.
Mr Albarelli came across CIA documents while investigating the suspicious suicide of Frank Olson, a biochemist working for the SOD who fell from a 13th floor window two years after the Cursed Bread incident. One note transcribes a conversation between a CIA agent and a Sandoz official who mentions the “secret of Pont-Saint-Esprit” and explains that it was not “at all” caused by mould but by diethylamide, the D in LSD.
While compiling his book, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments, Mr Albarelli spoke to former colleagues of Mr Olson, two of whom told him that the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident was part of a mind control experiment run by the CIA and US army.
After the Korean War the Americans launched a vast research programme into the mental manipulation of prisoners and enemy troops.
Scientists at Fort Detrick told him that agents had sprayed LSD into the air and also contaminated “local foot products”.
Mr Albarelli said the real “smoking gun” was a White House document sent to members of the Rockefeller Commission formed in 1975 to investigate CIA abuses. It contained the names of a number of French nationals who had been secretly employed by the CIA and made direct reference to the “Pont St. Esprit incident.” In its quest to research LSD as an offensive weapon, Mr Albarelli claims, the US army also drugged over 5,700 unwitting American servicemen between 1953 and 1965.
None of his sources would indicate whether the French secret services were aware of the alleged operation. According to US news reports, French intelligence chiefs have demanded the CIA explain itself following the book’s revelations. French intelligence officially denies this.
Locals in Pont-Saint-Esprit still want to know why they were hit by such apocalyptic scenes. “At the time people brought up the theory of an experiment aimed at controlling a popular revolt,” said Charles Granjoh, 71.
“I almost kicked the bucket,” he told the weekly French magazine Les Inrockuptibles. “I’d like to know why.”
Death to the Queers, Sez the Good Rev
March 9th, 2010The Reverend Steven Anderson, pastor of the Faithful Word Baptist church in Tempe, AZ, has been doing a little ‘channeling’ in his Sunday sermons; you don’t need to listen too closely to hear the spirit of the Antichrist whispering in his ear.
[NOTE: The first Tea-Bigot to bring an automatic assault rifle to a Presidential appearance is a member of this Faithful Word Church, and was inspired to arm himself thusly by the sermons of this pastor--who also preached on the death of the President (a different story which shall be told at a different time)]
Here’s the good Rev now, spreading the love of Jesus:
“You wanna know who the biggest hypocrite in the world is? The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers but not for homosexuals. Hypocrite! The same God who instituted the death penalty for murderers is the same God who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals. Sodomites. Queers. That’s what the death penalty was instituted for. OK? That’s God. He hasn’t changed. ‘Oh, God doesn’t feel that way these days’ some say. Well God never felt anything about it…but he commanded and said they should be taken out and killed.
“Do you know why God wanted the Sodomites in the Old Testament to be killed? Do you know why every good king of Israel, the bible says, they got rid of the Sodomites in the land? You know, the good kings that came after the bad kings, who had allowed the Sodomites to infest their land? They had, uh, infiltrated…
“King Asa got the Sodomites out of the land. Jehosephat exterminated the Sodomites that were left from the days of his father Asa. Why? Because the Sodomites are infectuous [sic]. That’s why. Because they’re not reproducers, that goes without saying. They’re recruiters.
“How are they multiplying? Do you not see that they’re multiplying? Are you that blind? Have you noticed that there’s more than there were last year, and the year before, and the year before that? How are they multiplying? Here’s a biology lesson–they’re not reproducers, they’re recruiters! And you know who they’re after? Your children.
“Remember you dropped off your kids last week? That’s who they’re after. Remember, you drop them off and leave them with somebody all the time, you don’t know, whatsay you drop them off at some day care, drop them off at some school somewhere, you don’t know where they’re at…I’ll tell you where they’re at–they’re being recruited by the Sodomites. They’re being molested by the Sodomites. I could tell you so many stories about people that I know being molested and recruited by the Sodomites. They recruit through rape. They recruit through molestation. They recruit through violation. They are, uh, infecting our society. They are spreading their dis-ease…it’s not a physical disease, it’s a sin disease. It’s a wicked, filthy sin disease and it’s spreading on a rampage.
“Can’t you see that it’s spreading on a rampage? I mean, can you not see that? Can you not see that it’s just exploding in growth? Why? Because each Sodomite recruits far more than one other Sodomite. Because his whole life is about recruiting other Sodomites. His whole life is about violating and hurting people and molesting them. So how many Sodomites is one Sodomite going to produce?”
I think the only real question is who was the Sodomite that molested and recruited Reverend Steven? Though maybe we should also ask why members of the Reverend’s congregation drop their children off at unfamiliar places and leave them with people they don’t know or trust, and why they don’t know where they’re at or what they’re doing.?