Another War?

Today are the primaries for Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island. It wiill be an interesting and long day for political junkies like me. But before that I need to address the possiblity of yet another conflict that could get ugly for the US.

well, Professor where are we talking about this time? South American, most notable the anger between Colombia and Ecuador. It seems that the army of Colombia crossed the border to go after the leftist organization, FARC and di d kill one of its commanders. There is protest flying all over Washington and the UN. Now Chavez of Venezuela who is an ally of Ecuador, has sent roops and equipment to their border with Colombia.

Now we have a stand off between those who align with Chavez and those who align with the US. This could get really ugly, if not handled properly. Considering there are US troops in Colombia helping that country fight the war on drugs, which is yet another sore spot in the region.

Since Bush has his head up his butt, the possibility of this escalating into a full blown war is a great possibility. You asked for it--you got it!

Internationally Speaking

With all the dynamics in the the US election cycle, I have not had much time to write on international affairs. I apologize, for it use to be my strong suit. I just cannot get enough of the happenings in this fascinating contests.

There have been a few developments in the world that deserve a post or two. One Kosovo has declared independence from Serbia. US applauds the move, Russia condemns. That alone is something, since there seems to be a revival of the old Cold war days and now the US and Russia are once again heading into a head butt on the international stage.

Across the world there is mixed emotions. Countries that are dealing with their own separatist movement are worried that it will spill over into their country and political scene. This will be worth watching to see who does what and to whom.

Yesterday the news came out that Castro resigned from the presidency and the parliment, but would remain the head of the Party. The US said nothing has changed until there is true democracy on the island. But behind the scenes, since Raul is a bit of an economic liberal, business is getting a thumper with the prospect of the opening of the country to their claws.

The embargo will remain in place. But with a little opening business will rush into the island and stake their claims to the profits that could be made from the island. we will have to watch the situation develop. Both Clinton and Obama are for keeping the embargo in place. But will that change? Only time and circumstance will dictate what will occur.

Lastly, the ruling party of Pakistan lost its ass in the recent election. there are calls for musharraf to step down--yeah right! He will hang on until he is forced to resign. The new government has said it wants talks with Islamists. If you listen real close, you may hear Bush's ass slamming shut.

All three of these situation will most likely be put on back burner until November and the general election. Things could change. Mostly likely they will not.

Pakistan Without Benazir

Pakistan Without Benazir


Holding true to the idea of saying nothing bad about the dead, the media is turning Bhutto into a martyr. The truth is far from democratic.

Russia Delivers First Nuke Fuel

Okay as of yesterday, Russia has delivered the first of the shipments of nuke fuel to Iran to be used for commercial nuke power. OK, now what will the US do? Will Bush use it to ratch up the anti-Iran rhetoric?

Okay, the Bush admin has said the Iran must stop support for Hezbollah and Hamas, But in 2003 Iran offered to do just that but Bush was riding a wave of patriotism and decided to ignore the offer. Now they want to appear to be taking the higher ground. At that time Iran also offered to help against al-Qaeda as well. Again this was not acceptable to the Admin at that time.

The time is now if we are to engage Iran in helping with the region. My question is will the opportunity be missed? Again?

Nuke Subsidies

Never thought that I would be on the same page as Libertarians, but on the issue of governmental subsidies for the construction of nuke plants we are. It seems that the Senate is willing to pass out billions to the companies that will construct the nuke plants. They want to give these companies taxpayer money to build. why? Because NO investors will give a dime of money without governmental guarantees. All the government should have to do with the construction of nukes is to be sure that all the permits, paperwork, safety regs and fair wages. The government has no right to guarantee the safety of the investors money. Yes, it is risky, but that is their risk not the taxpayers. If the government wants to be that involved in the situation then the money should be used for more earth friendly alternatives.

This appears just another way that the government is trying to control the technology and using taxpayers money without them having a say as to where the cash will go. time for a change, sports fans.

CHUQ

Chavez--Hugo Not Ceasar

I recently read an article by Ann Applebaum--or whatever the broads name is --where she was taunting Chavez because he was trying to extend his rule for life. She also was bitching about film stars who go and embrace him. That is just bullsh*t! These people should be able to support whoever they choose.

But I want to address the Chavez hating thing. To begin with, the part that she is upset with is a constitutional amendment to allow the Pres to seek re-election indefinately, there would be no limits. It will benefit whoever is Pres not Chavez only. I am not saying that Chavez will not abuse the right, but that it will be for all that are pres. I ask if she would be as outspoken if the Venezuelan Pres was a Bush ally? It would not be a story.

Chavez has done much for the poor and lower class in the country than any other Pres. Is he a dick? Most likely! But that is not important, what is, is the fact that he is improving the lives of the massive poor in his country. Because he is an opponent of Bush, any of his successes will NEVER be reported.

CHUQ

So You Want Reform

Reform government, reform Congress, reform, reform........these are the calls I hear when I am out talking with people. But what will reform bring? The way that the American political process acts, it will bring short lived changes. Why? Well, reforms can be used to help or improve. Unfortunately, any progress can be changed or eroded whenever the feeling is needed. But in the long run, reforms solve nothing, especially an really bad problems. it is just a way to appear to be accomplishing something when nothing is being done to solve the problem.

Consider all options carefully, because those promising reforms seldom can deliver. The American people are desperate for some reforms to the system, but the two parties they have now will NOT deliver on those reforms. Take a look at the last 50 years, reforms have been promised and promised and we are no better off than we were then.

Consider your options--ask questions--demand answers.

CHUQ

Deja-Vu--All Over Again!

Yes I am an old fart so I remember Iran on so many levels. I remember that in 1953, the Us helped the Shah return to power, which lasted until 1979. I remember the tactics of brutality the Shah used to oppress the people of Iran; all with the knowledge of the US. His brutal rule was dotted with executions, imprisonments, and lack of personal freedoms.

Does any of this sound familiar in any way? Protests by students and businessmen and women. All violently crapped on by the Iranian secret police, the savak, I believe. I recall in 1978 when hostages were taken at the US embassy in Tehran. I remember the flight of the Shah from Iran when he lost total control and had to go on vacation in 1979, never to return. And I remember the mullahs taking the reigns of power and here we are today.

Why do I bring this all up? Take a good look at Pakistan. It is all happening again. the protests, the arresting of hundreds, the crapping on demonstrations, and the whole time the US is behind their man in the country 100%.The only, ONLY difference is Pakistan has 20-30 nukes and Iran did not.

This is one a constant time loop. There is nothing new. It has all been done before. Now ask yourself, just how did that work out before, for the US? Time to wake up! The US and its attack dogs are causing a major problem in Pakistan and the fundamentalist Muslims could gain a major upper hand in the area.

If they do, the US has NO ONE to blame but the man in the dark suit in the big white house.

CHUQ

Speaking Of Dictators

The US is still behind Gen. Musharraf; he is a dictator. But that should not come as a surprise. The US has always been behind a dictator or two. NO? Try these on for size, diem of South Vietnam, Batista of Cuba, Pinochet of Chile and my all time fav, the Shah of Iran. All these were authoritarian and dictators in one form of another. So the backing of the Pakistani PM is no surprise to me. I have watched the US back undemocratic leaders for the sake of business or foreign policy. yet they demand democracy from Palestinians and then when it occurs they ignore the outcome.

But they jump on Burma for being undemocratic. Somewhere someone has got to see they lunacy here. So by all accounts, the US is for democracy, as long as it benefits them and them alone.

I just would like for everyone in this country to shut the f*ck up about pursuing democracy in other countries. It not about democracy! it is however, all about what is best for business. The people of any said country may take it in the butt as long as business is not effected.

Hypocritical ass wads! This is the way of things.

CHUQ

Rumsfeld Snowflakes

In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid "physical labor," and wrote of the need to "keep elevating the threat," "link Iraq to Iran" and develop "bumper sticker statements" to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war.

The memos, often referred to as "snowflakes," shed light on Rumsfeld's brusque management style and on his efforts to address key challenges during his tenure as Pentagon chief. Spanning from 2002 to shortly after his resignation following the 2006 congressional elections, a sampling of his trademark missives obtained Wednesday reveals a defense secretary disdainful of media criticism and driven to reshape public opinion of the Iraq war.

Seems Rumsfeld set the stage for the present probs we are having with Iran. Hopefully, no one is surprised. But wait!!! Did not Bush say that the War On Terror was not a bumpersticker? But yet Rummy used the term!

CHUQ

Blackwater--Government Bail out?

The U.S. Embassy on Wednesday began offering tens of thousands of dollars in payments to victims and families of victims of the Sept. 16 shootings in Baghdad involving security guards from the firm Blackwater Worldwide, according to relatives and U.S. officials.

Family members of several victims turned down the compensation, out of concern that accepting the funds would limit their future claims against the North Carolina-based security contractor and its chief executive, Erik Prince. Others said that the money being offered -- in some cases $12,500 for a death -- was paltry and that they wanted to sue Blackwater in an American court.

What the hell is this!?! The US govt is trying to save Blackwater's butt by trying to get people to settle for a lesser sum.

Why is the US gov. trying to bail out Blackwater? They seem to want the company NOT to be held responsible for its actions. Why? What has Blackwater done for the government that it needs to be protected at all costs? I will be watching, for there is more to this story than reaches the ear.

AFTER NOTE: I read someplace that the US Intel services uses private contractors to gather Intel. Now somewhere, somehow, that has got to be a bad thing. I do not want some "cowboy" agent running around pretending to be 007.


Enough said?

The Horror That Is Burma

SH*T! he is at it again! The Pres had yet another news conference where he spouted more of his hypocritical horsesh*t!

He spoke with Laura on one side and good ol' Condy on the other. I am still not certain why they were there, they said nothing and actually looked kinda bored. Anyway, I digress. Bush announced newer sanctions against Myanmar, Burma to you. The US will target certain people within the junta and their families. Companies will also be watched. Does that mean that Paris will not be able to buy a ruby? HA HA HA! Of course, she will, these sanctions are toothless at best.

The Pres mentioned the horror of the lack of human rights. Thinking...thinking...what about GITMO? He was horrified by the deaths in Burma. I ask what about the deaths in Darfur or Iraq or ............? My point is this whole sanction thing is a cop out! It is nothing short of a band aid for a gunshot wound. They have no teeth. The only hope there is that if things get too bad, more people will join the protests for democracy. But on the other side of that coin, the more that join, the more will die when the junta responds to the protests.

Talks are wanted. Palestine have talked on and off for 40+ years and how has that worked out? I say arm the people, they will do what is best for them, not what is best for the US. you want a free Burma, armed struggle looks like the last measure.

Iraqi Troop Drawdown

The Congress has been impotent to end the war, as a matter of fact they gave the Pres the funds to continue the war. Wait.......74% of the American people did not want the Pres to get the funds! Thinking....thinking.....if the people are the voice of the country--NO ONE IS LISTENING! Why? Come on you know the answer! It is all about who gets elected! It was never about what the people want!

Okay, the Pres wants to prove that his lame ass program, the Surge, is working so there will be a troop draw down by next year. Oh yeah, just in time for the Primaries--coincidence? Only if you are stupid enough to believe in such. His plan is to bring approximately 30, 000 troops home by the end of the year. Again just in time for the elections. Coincidence? Yada Yada.

This sounds really good right? Our boys and girls get to come home, finally. But wait! Yesterday there was a report that some National Guard units were being called up to go by the beginning of the year of 08. Oh yeah, some 20,000 of them.

Have you been paying attention? What part of that sounds like a draw down to you? The so-called draw Down is nothing but a political ploy to help repubs in the upcoming election. They can say we are bring the troops home. true that, but they are sending almost as many over to Iraq.

See what happens when you pay attention? You see politicians for what they are manipulating pricks and most important, f*cking LAIRS!

An Environmental Reality

WHAT A CORNY STORY

Ethanol! Ethanol! Rah! Rah! Rah!

The cheer go up we can finally end our dependence on foreign oil. Now that is a one pound bag of manure, which they are selling to the people. Guess what!? They are buying this crap (pun intended). As long as we allow the oil companies to make obscene profits, you will NEVER be weaned from foreign oil. Why is that? Ethanol cannot be transported through pipelines, for it will pick up impurities like water. So, the only way to transport it is in trucks. Now guess what? Trucks use diesel and that is another pollutant. Ethanol IS NOT the answer, sports fans.

Let us talk about how environmentally friendly ethanol is, NOT! A Stanford study showed that ethanol is at least as polluting as gasoline and could be more so. The burning of ethanol produces more lung damaging ozone than the burning of gasoline. Another polluting factor of ethanol is that farmers will use a nitrogen based fertilizer which will enter into the water supply, killing marine life and such. This alone should make it unwise to push the use of corn as an alternative. But who cares, it is all about who makes the profits, not what it will do to the environment.

Now let us talk about corn prices. Ethanol refiners use huge amounts of corn and with that food prices will go up and up. Corn is used in food production from feed for the cattle that make out steaks to the syrup for our soft drinks. As the demand for ethanol rise, so will the price of our food. The more corn that is planted the less other crops are raised and this will also add to the price of food. Nothing about ethanol is a good.

Corn is not even the best source of ethanol. Sugar cane is and it produces 8 times more energy than it uses to make. Corn, however, the ratio is 1.3 to 1. This basically means that corn produces a little more energy than it consumes in the refining process. Not an efficient product.

The US is importing foreign oil so that ethanol can be produced and distributed. The only thing that is being accomplished by the production of ethanol is we are putting the grocery store in competition with the gas station for the use of the corn.

Ethanol is nothing new! It was used in Ford’s original Model T and it was considered in the 1970’s during the oil embargo. If ethanol is inefficient and costly why is it even being considered? That is the easiest question to answer—PROFITS! No one in the oil business wants to eliminate out dependence on foreign oil. Why would they shoot themselves in the ass? Answer—they will not cut off their supply of profit.

This is not an answer to dependency, it is however an answer to oil companies retaining their profit margin, for an additive will still need a supply of the original product and that translates into continued exploitation by the oil companies.

I am always amazed that the American consumer will pay $60,000 for an SUV, but will not spend $5 on a light bulb that will use less energy. The American consumer wants others to do the sacrifice, not them personally. There is the problem Americans are shallow little toads, that think a tax deductible donation will solve the problem and all they have to do is sit back and enjoy the ride.

Do not take my word for it! Do some research and you will find that I am correct. Do not hand the oil industry any more power than they have taken in the past. It is time for the people to become the power; we have waited long enough; time to act my friends.

CHUQ
15 Oct 07

Where Have All The Racists Gone?

For some years racism seem to be waning, but in the last year or so it is back and with a vengeance. Remember Imus and his totally unprofessional comment? How about the Jena 6? How about the nooses showing up in Louisiana and NewYork? How about the Louisiana school bus driver that made black children sit in the back of the bus? None of this sounds like the racism of the past is going away anytime soon.

Recently, FOX's Bill O'Reilly made a few bone head comments about he was surprised that black people could run a successful restaurant and that he was surprised that they could be well dressed. He still does not realize that his comment was racist, or at least could be perceived as racist. A lot of attention has been paid to his comments and as such his TV ratings have increased. Why?

The American, no matter how they deny it, are racist. Look at the immigration debate. Paint it anyway you want, it is still trying to eliminate the people of color. The more that people deny the fact the more racist they appear.

To answer the original question, they have gone nowhere. They are here, but more covert than in the past.

Global War On Drugs

This is a point of contention for me. After 20+ yrs nothing was been accomplished with the exception of spending my money on a worthless endeavor. This war has had some minor successes, like they stop a shipment or so a year, but unfortunately none of the stoppage has put a dent in the flow of drugs into the US. So why do we continue to fight a war that we seemingly cannot win? A very good question with only one answer--bureaucracy. They have created a monster that can only consume resources and produces little in return. Now ask why does it continue? If it were a business and showed as little return on investment it would have shut down years ago. But instead it just keeps consuming with little results. Then why does it live on? Another short answer--money! The contractors in the WOD are making billions and billions and that will keep the war going forever.

As Nathan Nadelmann has said, "it is always dangerous when rhetoric drives policy". They want to reduce the use of drugs by American society, but think about it, has there ever been a drug free society? HELL NO! But day after day, these guys just keep the rhetoric coming. The rhetoric that "we" are winning the WOD, when in reality there is a wealth of info that says we are not. You have about as much chance for a drug free society as you had an alcohol free society in the Prohibition. And how did that work out?

You do realize that if the WOD and Iraq War were eliminated there would be enough money for just about ALL social programs, to include Health, education, etc. So now I ask you, what is more important to you, the WOD or the betterment of the American people?

CHUQ

Laws Of Political Action

I have thought about this for awhile and have seen that politics and physics have a lot in common. like the 3rd Law, which states, for every action there is an equal, but opposite reaction (paraphrased).

For example:

Iraq--invasion was to bring more stability to the nation and it reversed.

Congress--Dems get the call to end war--they are failing.

Just a couple to illustrate that there are similarities in the two, so from now on I will call it the 3rd Law of Political Action.

Keep an eye out for I will try and connect more laws of physics to politics--this could be interesting--I guess if you are a political junkie like me--what the hell--it is better than flies mate!

CHUQ

A Political Success In Iraq?

A question for the ages--will there be a political solution found for Iraq? The US Pres has said that is the goal of the US intervention--a politically stable Iraq. Thinking......thinking......Did I miss something while I was medicated? Was not Iraq stable before the invasion? I mean the US had a hard on for Saddam, but the political stability was there.

To begin with politics is a local endeavor--you know work locally--think nationally. In Iraq politics is closely linked with religious ideology--so that means complications are everywhere and should have been seen from the beginning of the US intervention. That would have been prudent, but prudence plays no part when the slobbering capitalist are thinking--OIL!

So is it really an Iraqi political solution that is looked for by the Admin? Or could it be just some success for the Bush and his entourage? Please--look at all happening in Iraq, does any of it appear to be from concern for the Iraqi people? If you said yes, then I suggest that you go back outside and hit that bong again.


Oh boy and now they want us to believe that they have a plan for the presidency? Please-- OK the Pres took heat from some reports that were not too good in July and he said wait for the Patraeus report in Sept and then benchmarks were not met and he is saying wait for March of 08, if all is not up to code by then, what will be the new date that we must wait on? How long will the Dems let this bullshit continue? They need to contact their spouses and get their nuts back; the American people gave them a course they wanted to see followed and so far the Dems have done nothing but go through the paces and accomplished NOTHING! Have the Dems realize that they are asking the American people to vote for them to run the country. They want to convince the majority to vote for them and their leadership. I was born at night, but not last night!

As always I go back to one of my fav sayings--"The American people get the government they deserve".

CHUQ

Bush Speech---Part.......?

SH*T I have lost count of the number of speeches to sell whichever plan he endorses this week. Well if you want a rehash of the the general's and ambassador's testimony, then watch TV tonite, for the Pres will give it all to you again. FYI, their testimony was the same exact thing that the Pres has been harping on for a month or so. They just reworded his many photo-op speeches; they used a larger vocabulary than the Pres, but it was the same exact assessment of what is happening in Iraq.

R. Scherer has stated it pretty well:

Of course Gen. David Petraeus predicts success in the Iraq war. What wonders couldn’t generals achieve with more troops and more time? The battle is always going well until it is lost, and then they blame defeat on the politicians and the public.

There’s no shortage of retired generals who will tell you we could have won in Vietnam if only we had sent more troops, or bombed the dikes in the North, or been willing to kill more than the 3.4 million Vietnamese who died along with 59,000 American soldiers. Instead, the politicians and public, led by that bleeding heart President Richard Nixon, lost the will to win. Thus, the dominoes fell to communism, and Red China and Red Vietnam now rule the world by dint of military force. Have you been to Wal-Mart lately? The triumph of communism is total.

Oh BTW, The House Minority Leader, Boehner, has said this:

In an interview on CNN today, Wolf Blitzer asked House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) about “the Americans who are killed every month” in Iraq and “how much longer” the “military commitment is going to require?” “The investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here,” replied Boehner.

Makes me proud to be a vet. This is a normal feeling of your flippin' leaders. The soldiers are acceptable losses.

CHUQ

Professor's Prediction

Everybody and his brother and/or sister, is making a prediction on the Patraeus report. Why should I be any different?

OK, Patraeus will make his report to Congress today and so will Amb. Crocker. It will be a "stay the course" format. they will say that there is some success and more failures, especially in the political arena. They will pretty much echo the position of the President that he has been spouting for a couple of weeks. In fact, I would not be surprised if the Pres visit to Iraq was not more for the informing of the players at what was to be said. The photo op with soldiers was a really nice touch, but that is not the concern of the visit; but it does make good press.

The Dems--this is a broken party! they were swept into power with the promise of an end to the war and they have been thwarted on every front by the Pres and the GOP. Their approval ratings suck and they want to attack a General who is in the war. Not one of their better plans.

The prediction for the war? Troops will stay another 6 months or so. Pres will get his extension and the Dems will be on their heels trying to salvage their dignity. They will have to switch their rhetoric as the elections approach. They can no longer embrace the anti-war position. Not if they want to be elected. The American people will believe Patraeus and Bush will come out of this smelling like a rose. How does he do it!

The question is who will you believe? The general owes his position to the president. The ambassador owes his position to the president. But yet some believe they will be straightforward with the Congress. The media is kept at bay, allowed only access when it is prudent to the position of the president. Those who say things have improved are the president's boys. They would support his opinion if it were that a BMW evolved from an ape. So please save me from the bovine fecal matter that this is an unbiased report.

The Dems are becoming more and more impotent as the process moves forward. Ask yourself, if they were swept into office on an anti-war program, what has changed that they are now a supporter of the obscenity in Iraq?

Just some random thoughts for a Monday morning.


CHUQ