http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/blog_rss/bingvangorden "If by a "liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "liberal." – President John F. Kennedy Phil Graham former Senator and current Economic advisor to Presidential candidate John Mc Cain, believes we're a nation of whiners. If he were a liberal he'd be accused of hating America. I wouldn't go that far but it does appears Graham hates Americans enough to call them whiners and tell us any economic woes we are experiencing are merely figments of our whining imagination. Can you blame him? After all, a complaint against our economy is a direct attack on the failure of the economic philosophy Graham and his conservative buddies worked so hard to build. He was instrumental in de-regulating the home mortgage industry himself. If you lost your home because you were duped into signing a flexible rate mortgage by being told you could re-do it later, you can thank conservative economics and Phil Graham personally. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqy4 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqy4/commentary#comments Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:19:27 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqy4 BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cqy4/ Can we all admit to ourselves now that "free markets" and unregulated capitalism do not serve our national interests? One word typifies the failure of a greed based system to provide for our security. That word is Oil! Or as Upton Sinclair would say Oil!!!!!!! Despite what the neo-cons would have you believe, government serves a purpose. And yes, if it needs to meddle in the affairs of business if it's in the public's interest then it has an obligation to do so. Oil is running our lives. It's a political bludgeon and we are addicts for it. We need and use plastics and fuel to power our daily lives. Oil can warm us in winter and cool us in summer all the while powering our vehicles including our military and emergency services. For decades we've been sold the notion that there is no other way. We must rely on this and this alone. To do otherwise would ruin the economy they say. We must, if need be, go after these resources by force. If we pollute stretches of coastline so be it. If we rape the consumer so a handful of wealthy people can be wealthier so be it. This is the order of all things. Thanks to the oil men. We love oil so much we would lay down with countries that foster the most outward hate towards us. Drilling is not the answer. Environmentalists don't have the power to stop this energy monopoly juggernaut. There are leases available for purchase right now and the big oil companies don't want them anyway. They are corporations whose only responsibility is to share holders. Our security is of little concern to them, after all the oil men cry, there's nothing they can do about supply and demand. Yeah, right. And cigarettes aren't harmful to your health and asbestos doesn't cause cancer. Why do we allow corporations to screw the citizens of the world over when we have a document called the Constitution that is designed to prevent this from happening? Don't believe me? Think the founders were free marketeers and capitalists to the core? Then do some reading, you're wrong. Corporations were not to last more than one's life time. Monopolies were abhorred. Accumulated wealth in too few hands was seen as an opportunity to return to the tyrannical rule of the King of England. Before terms like communist and socialist were common, the founding fathers looked to industry and business with as much trepidation as they did military rule or an all powerful executive. Yes, most were wealthy men, but they knew few were as virtuous as they and rights of people depended on protections from too much wealth being used against them. *gasp!* Wouldn't have been prudent 30 some years ago to listen to Jimmy Carter about our energy policy? One that relied on conservation and not consumption as the current crop of political flacks want? One that turned away from conventional fossil fuels to solar, wind and thermal renewable resources? In Europe where stricter standards were placed on fuel efficient vehicles their economies managed to do fine and their vehicles and technology evolved along with it. In the States we have the same auto manufacturers making electric vehicles for sale there, telling us the technology doesn't exist and would be too costly if our government would do what's best for the people it represents and force them to comply to making better vehicles here. Can we abandon the proven failure of this neo-con dream, that capitalism and corporations through markets will provide what's best for the public? It isn't supply and demand that has us being gouged at the pump. Demand is down, the price keeps going up. These aren't free markets they are fixed markets. And we are allowing industry to fix the system! That's what government is for! It's to protect our interests from this maddness. Consider the following, we rely on private contractors for providing military services now more than ever conceived of before. Our government actually promotes no bid, cost plus contracts to military contractors! War profiteering is being encouraged as a matter of business! Eisenhower would kick some tail if he were alive today. We actually trust our nations ports to private foreign companies from areas of the world where our American way of life is demonized. We've allowed millions of manufacturing jobs to leave our shores. The only industry mentioned in the Constitution is the press, the media. Often referred to as our 4th Estate of government, once viewed as essential to our liberty, has been allowed to merge and conglomerate into the hands of a few select individuals more concerned with making a buck than providing for an informed electorate. And at times, the NY TImes for example, it's worked in collusion with our government instead of questioning it. I know this rant smacks of that scary old socialism. Because in a black and white world there is only that and capitalism. But we live in a world of color, not a utopia. There is a middle ground between the two that FDR found that brought us into our greatest age and we need to return to that. We have the buying power, we can control our own markets. In this age of heightened fear of terrorist attack we can't allow "free" markets to protect us. we need regulated markets that protect American workers, their jobs. We should have the right to feel secure that we are not one medical diagnosis away from complete bankruptcy. We should have control over our own destiny as a nation and not as some world business partner that allows our public policy decisions be solely driven by greed and in control of only a few. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqyC http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqyC/commentary#comments Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:23:05 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqyC BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqyC/ "Congress shall make no ex post facto law……………….." (that means no retro active laws) United States Constitution Republicans like to demonize liberalism and conveniently call anyone that disagrees with them a liberal. It's easy for their supporters to grasp and gives them someone to despise and blame for whatever the Republicans want to claim they've done. As a liberal I have written many times about what liberalism really is and who in my view is a liberal. A recent vote in the Senate that gave expanded spying powers on American citizens to the President as well as granting retro active immunity to the telecom companies that illegally spied and collected data on you and me. Sadly the Democratic Party caved in to their more moderate and right leaning wings of the party. Obviously this bill started and passed the House before it got to the Senate and the same was true there. Speaker Nancy Pelosi proved without a doubt, despite hailing from liberal San Francisco, is no liberal herself as she supported it. In the Senate only 15 voted against this un-Constitutional compromise. They include, Joseph Biden, DE Barbara Boxer, CA Sherrod Brown, OH Maria Cantwell, WA Chris Dodd, CT Dick Durbin, IL Russ Feingold, WI Tom Harkin, IA John Kerry, MA Frank Lautenberg, NJ Patrick Leahy, VT Robert Menendez, NJ Bernie Sanders, VT Chuck Schumer, NY Ron Wyden, OR These 15 are the liberals in the Senate. 14 Democrats and one independent in Bernie Sanders. Thank you for standing up for our civil liberties and standing against the erosion of them. Thank you for adhering to the oath you took and for measuring each piece of legislation as it applies to the Constitution and not knee jerk politics of fear. I am aware there are many people out there who are of the opinion that it's ok to give up some privacy rights for the sake of security. Frankly they are cowards. Just as all the representatives in the House and the Senate who are either afraid of another terrorist attack or fear they will be portrayed as being on the side of the terrorists are cowards. This includes our nominee Barack Obama. He claims that our national security is more important than suing the telecom companies. He's wrong. Each and every representative takes an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. There is no clause that exempts Constitutional protections because of the possibility of terrorist attack. These telecom companies helped the executive branch of our government collect data on us without a warrant or probable cause while the President denied this was happening. He even claimed flatly that the Constitutional protections of wiretapping were being respected. Later he admitted that he lied, that the Constitution was not being respected and our rights were being violated. This bill sends a dangerous message to future administrations. Not only that, it also illustrates that an industry that breaks the law can effectively lobby and buy off congress for a get out of jail free card. Think about it folks. We're screwing around with our civil liberties and our founding document, the radical blueprint of freedom that has been used around the world by other countries hungry for our greatness, because of a handful of radical militant Muslim fundamentalists living in a cave in the North of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Republican Party has been scaring their constituents into believing only the GOP can keep them safe and to do that they have to ignore Constitutionally guaranteed rights. How many times have I heard the most cowardly refrain from Republicans that they are willing to forgo their rights to be kept safe. That they have nothing to hide so if the government spies on them, it's ok. How ironic the party that fears the government at every turn is now happy to let them spy on them without a warrant. Now the Democrats in DC have validated this ridiculous philosophy. Except for the liberals, who continue to adhere to the oath they took upon entering office. Shame on Mark Udall. Shame on Ed Perlmutter and shame on Ken Salazar. You've enabled the Republicans once again in making the law and the Constitution optional. You've broken your oath of office. It's a simple thing we ask you to do and you have failed us again. I don't feel any safer knowing that the federal government has the authority to collect my personal information, my emails, my phone records, my communications with friends abroad. Somehow I think those that would do us harm will still be able to and we have lost rights to privacy we may never get back again. I know it's a tired refrain, but it is from Ben Franklin after all, "those who would give liberty for temporary security deserve neither." http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cq97 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cq97/commentary#comments Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:51:01 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cq97 BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cq97/ By a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court ruled again against Bush administration policies involving legal rights of detainees being held in Guantanomo Bay. Conservative critics call the decision disastrous, and deviously liberal. The dissenting opinion written by Antonin Scalia was typical rhetoric regarding war with islamo-fascists and national security blah blah blah. None of it based in the Constitution he is charged with interpreting in these matters. This decision illustrates beautifully why liberals are right, and conservatives are wrong. "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Let's consider the facts of the matter. This case was about whether or not individuals being held by the United States have the right to challenge in a court, their imprisonment. It's called habeas corpus and it is only suspended under the most dire of circumstances. Abraham Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War, was reprimanded by the Supreme Court, then granted that power by Congress shortly thereafter as the situation called for it. We have threats to this country. But we do not have rebellion nor invasion. Habeas corpus isn't something to be fooled with. It's a cornerstone of a just society. We as a country do not, rather should not, be in the business of snatching people and holding them indefinitely. That's what the soviets did, and what the Chinese do. We treated Nazis better than the individuals being held now in Guantanomo. Conservatives want us to believe our government has the right guys and we should afford them the benefit of the doubt. We should consider it patriotic to trust them, not question them and to not show any moral outrage at the potential innocent individuals rights being trampled on. Because we are at war. They must all be guilty and who really cares anyway as long as it saves lives? Here's the rub. Hundreds have been freed from Guantanomo without any charges, without any trial. An acknowledgment that some of them were actually innocent. And an acknowledgment our government was willing to free some of them because their home governments requested it, despite their still being a national security threat. And lastly, the most obvious and glaring fault in the logic of the right wing nut case on the teevee and radio is: if their guilty, get proof, charge them, try them, jail them and potentially execute them. This recent smack down of Bush is the latest of 3 rulings expressing the same sentiment. People in our custody are to be held under our rule of law. That we are bound Constitutionally to do so. Liberals respect it despite the threat of terrorism, conservatives abhor it in fear of terrorism. This is not a new phenomenon. Liberals point to the Constitution. Conservatives run from it. When judges rule against their rigid ideology they cry "activist judge!" As is evidenced by recent court rulings in the states of California and Massachusetts recognizing the rights of homosexuals to marry. In both cases the Constitution was interpreted correctly. There was nothing that prevented gay marriage and equal protection provided. It would have been activist to re-write the law to deny a group of people rights others had protected under the law. Just as it would be activist of the Supreme Court to re-write the Constitution to allow the suspension of Habeas Corpus or to grant the government the right to mistreat prisoners according to our own Constitution or treaties. Conservatives claim if they don't get their way, they are being oppressed. It is their moral code and only theirs that is permissible and they are willing to try and change the law of the land to enact it. Liberals recognize the law as protecting the rest of us from that oppressive and unoriginal moral code if we don't want to adhere to it. We believe the Constitution makes the government obligated to ensure equal protection and opportunity. We believe the Constitution not only prevents government from encroaching on our liberties but also obligates our governments to ensure them. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cq4p http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cq4p/commentary#comments Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:38:13 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cq4p BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cq4p/ Through out our history we have had many great Presidents who had little experience as a legislator on the federal level. That's why I'm kind of surprised with the Obama critics who claim he has too little experience to be President. The irony deepens too as Obama has quite a legislative record and has shown an ability to bring people together. In Illinois as a state representative he was instrumental in getting a law passed that initially no one wanted. The idea was that the police video tape all of their interviews with suspects. Cops hated it, so did Republicans who viewed it as capitulating to criminals and Democrats feared they'd be viewed as well, capitulating to criminals. But Obama was able to convince all parties that it was a good idea. That it actually helped the police make iron tight cases against defendants. They had the proof that statements were not made with any forced coercion. His ability to reach people goes beyond politics. One only has to watch the now famous speech on race in Philadelphia to see that he has the ability to consider many different points of view and communicate complex issues in ways that are easily understood. I have many Republican friends that began considering voting for Obama after hearing that speech. Other critics claim they don't know what all this change and hope business is about. I suggest a listen to any of his stump speeches to find out but in a nutshell, he wants to change Washington. He wants to move towards less corporate influence. He also wants to change political discourse and he has proven he can. He understands that we are currently divided and we need to come together to solve the problems we face. He also gets that it's a bottom up process not top down. In other words if elected, he expects we the people to actually get engaged and help bring about the changes we need to. He is asking us to lift ourselves and our country up. As voter turn out and excitement surrounding his campaign illustrate, he can motivate people. Right now this country needs motivation. All this being said, obviously there are other facets of being President than motivational skills and the ability to communicate effectively. He has exhibited better judgement in the past on foreign policy issues than John Mc Cain. He was against invading Iraq when it was unpopular to do so. He understands that the mission in Iraq has been accomplished and it's time to begin withdrawing our troops. He wants to focus on routing the resurgent al Qaeda forces. Even if that means stepping on the toes of our ally Pakistan. The list of military commanders who support him are long; both in the tooth and in numbers. John Mc Cain however has flipped. He was adamantly opposed to torture. But eventually abandoned his own principles to support President Bush's use, or "redefinition" of it. He can't keep straight Sunni or Shia sects or who is killing our soldiers. He overstates Iran's influence in Iraq and goes on photo ops that include dozens of soldiers, several helicopters and sporting a flak jacket on the streets of Baghdad and tells us things are just great there. He, sadly, has become nothing more than a cheer leader for Bush's failed policies in Iraq. Last week he was praising safety gains in Iraq cities as 3 more suicide bombing occurred. Critics from within his own party question his ability to keep it together. He's actually struck fellow Senators before. His temper is legendary. John Mc Cain doesn't seem to grasp what he used to tout only 8 years ago. He simply isn't the same "maverick" or "straight talker." A President must also understand their oath of office. It's to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Many Constitutional scholars and US. historians (http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html) agree the current President has seriously breached the limits of the executive laid out in that radical document, that blueprint for democracy. Wiretapping illegally, ignoring provisions of treaties like the Geneva Conventions, signing statements, propaganda etc. (Liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich outlined 35 separate reasons as he entered articles of impeachment into the Congressional record this week) And it's safe to say, based on his own statements that a Mc Cain Presidency will most likely continue the abuses of this administration. Barack Obama however was a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago (they have an amazing web site called "The Founder's Constitution" that includes letters and speeches of our founding fathers, check it out) and has vowed upon entering office, reviewing executive orders and signing statements of the Bush Administration as well as law to scale back those powers to the way our founders intended. Most Americans are dissatisfied with the direction the Republican's have taken us, some are just as disappointed at a do-little Democratically controlled congress. The country wants to change course. John Mc Cain does not offer any change of course however. He wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He has no intention of looking at NAFTA and has changed his mind on illegal immigration which leads me to believe he won't do anything about it. In other words he offers little in the way of any real change or hope. If he assumes the powers Bush assumed of the presidency, at best, we will be stuck in neutral while our standard of living declines. At worst we will be further down a path that most Americans would prefer to turn away from. Barack Obama at least gives us a hope for the kind of change we need. A return to the Constitution as more than law or limits on government, which should be limited of course, but a way of life for all Americans. Obama gets it. Say what you want about motives, his lack of experience, or his idealism, he gets it. We and only we the people are going to the right the ship. He can provide us an opportunity and offer encouragement like few can. The America of the future needs to return to it's status as the "city on the hill." It is not enough to be feared or clever, we need to be respected as well. We should be leading the world in industry, in education and freedom. If we need to enact tariffs, pass laws, raise taxes or better yet spend the revenue wiser, then so be it. The current path of de-regulaiton of industry and putting corporate interests and share holders interests ahead of actual people as a matter of political policy is shown to be a failure. Political discourse must be embraced and divisive drivel masquerading as such needs to cease. Our military needs to heal and re-commit. Our veterans need care, our cities need bailing out after natural disasters. The focus of government must change and Barack Obama is the best candidate to facilitate that. John Mc Cain won't come close. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqm9 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqm9/commentary#comments Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:50:11 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqm9 BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cqm9/ Anybody paying attention to the media the past month is aware of the MoveOn ad and how it really rankled Republicans and even some Democrats. So much so both Houses managed to pass wags of the finger at them for having the audacity of questioning the honesty of a proven liar that happened to wear a uniform. Democrats went along in large numbers much to my chagrin. Seems the party isn't nearly as left as the left would like it after all. But a week later Rush Limbaugh, champion propaganda master for the right, stepped in it himself when he got caught calling soldiers he disagreed with phony. Never able to show humility and admit he misspoke he is spinning this as another example of the drive by media, claiming he was taken out of context and pretending to be a victim. He had to edit his own transcript to deflect the real context of his statement, to a caller talking specifically about soldiers who believed the Iraq war was going badly. He had just gotten off the phone with one who he accused of not really being a Republican. The following caller was another soldier complaining about the previous caller. After he made the phony soldiers comment he chided "them" because "they" knew what they were signing up for when "they" enlisted. But Rush felt the need to edit that information out to make his case. That should tip you off he's not being honest but remarkably he has his supporters. Anybody familiar with Limbaugh knows he has mocked John Kerry's service, John Murtha, Wesley Clark and other veterans. He's shown a willingness to perpetuate swift boat myths and questioned the validity of their service. "Fake patriots" he's called them. Aha! Said some Democrats, who a month prior wouldn't have given this the time of the day, saw an opportunity. After all the Democrats have ignored this kind of rhetoric in the past and never saw the need before to do what the Republicans had just done regarding the MoveOn ad. "Tit for tat," they said. Some urging a similar official condemnation of Limbaugh's comments. After all he just called troops who disagreed with his view were phony soldiers. (if you still disagree with that you haven't heard the unedited audio yet) What did the Republicans do? They ran around screaming about banning the Fairness Doctrine again. No one was saying Rush had to shut up and no one who was critical of his comments brought up the Fairness Doctrine anyway. Kind of paranoid. I mean Rush says things like this all the time, so do other right wing pundits. Ann Coulter comes to mind, once joking about Congressman Murtha getting "fragged." She was very amused with herself. But you didn't hear Democrats make much of a peep. They say more outlandish things every day. But the Republicans were so outraged at the bad manners of MoveOn all hell broke loose. Let's reflect on the past 7 years or so and remember what angered our Republican representatives most. Critics of the war with Iraq were a favorite target. They pounced on the slightest criticism of the Bush administration. They saw no problem with the over the top smearing of those folks by their pals in the media. Now some of them have an on line petition to save Rush from these horrible critics on the left! Some of the critics are, of course, soldiers against the war. The irony hurts so bad! But these jokers defend Rush Limbaugh after condemning MoveOn! This is dangerous for them. The hypocrisy of this is too close in time. The two examples of this double standard happened back to back. True believers may not be able to overcome the obviousness of the situation. If the two events happened far enough apart people wouldn't connect the two or could muddy the issue. Because time makes people numb. Just look at Sen. Larry Craig who now says he'll stay in the Senate, despite his own party who had encouraged him to resign a while ago after pleading guilty and getting caught trying to pick up a stranger in the men's room for sex. But that's another hypocrisy for another time. At the Republican Party's convention in 2004 band aids with little purple hearts on them were worn by delegates to openly mock Senator Kerry's service. Before MoveOn's "General Betray Us" Limbaugh gave us "Senator Betray Us" regarding Chuck Hagel's position on the war. A position that Rush didn't agree with of course. Opponents of Democratic Congressman Max Cleland aired commercials morphing his face with those of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, questioning his patriotism because he opposed the Patriot Act. He's a triple amputee Vietnam vet! What's worse, Rush and Ann claim he did it to himself! They trash troops and veterans all the time! And the Republicans in DC wouldn't have it any other way. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqXl http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqXl/commentary#comments Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:59:25 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqXl BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqXl/ President Bush vetoed an almost veto proof bill to expand children's health care recently. He is opposed to the 35 billion dollar price tag and more importantly he is opposed to government involvement in health care. This is no surprise. The free marketeers and supply siders and Ayn Rand types believe that the government is ineffective at providing services and that the private sector should. Coincidentally up on the hill the president of Blackwater testified before a congressional committee. His company is providing services the military used to. They escort people around Iraq. They are part of the massive amount of contractors that now dwarfs the number of actual soldiers. There was a time, not long ago, when war profiteering was considered treasonous. He makes over a million a year. This is an example of the neo-cons dream of privatization. Somehow they think that it's more effective to pay a private company thousands more per contractor than the average soldier. I'm still trying to figure out why our tax dollars are still being handed over in the form of no bid contracts to companies like Blackwater who have failed in previous contracts to live up to their end of the bargain. Let's remember they are in the business to make money. They have hired mercenaries form around the world, adding to the tensions in Iraq. This seems like money poorly spent. Using private companies in this manner isn't cheaper and is less effective than more traditional means. Any reasonable person can see this. Using this private firm and others has not helped our image either. The actions of the contractors in Iraq have put a greater burden on our military. But the administration also used them for Hurricane Katrina relief in New Orleans. They plan on using them for other natural disasters. Surely our tax dollars could be spent more effectively than hiring mercenaries. Certainly the government has served it's people better in the past by taking care of business in house. Privatization and relaxed regulations on industry are not always in the public's interest. Certain things are better managed by all of us versus farming the work out at a higher cost. There is a fear that has been beat into us by corporatists. That government is bad. Anything it does only keeps industry from creating a better society. Regulations on corporations and trade are bad for the economy. So we have slowly adopted this idea that the government is incapable of doing anything better than the private sector. The profit motive out weighs the public's interest and that doesn't seem morally right. Capitalism left unchecked does not always benefit the consumer. Nor are corporations always virtuous. It makes sense to allow government to offer certain functions to the commons and to protect the citizens from abuse . Health care for kids for example. Education, infrastructure and job creation. Reagan used to joke that government was the problem not the solution but it really depends on how we the people use it. It's obvious that if the people running government think it's evil they don't use it very well. But recovering the reasonable conclusion that the government isn't the enemy proves difficult. It's easy for people to ignore it when they believe it is hopelessly corrupt. What they don't realize is that if it really is, it's largely in part because they ignore it. Government isn't to be feared or loathed. It's to be used. It involves participation. There are elements of our daily lives better served by functions handled by the government. If used properly everyone benefits. Some things that benefit the public shouldn't be privatized. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqXK http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqXK/commentary#comments Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:43:31 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqXK BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqXK/ Oh, America, we need a history lesson. John McCain just lost the sliver of respect that I had left for him. Being a non-beliver and fearful of organized religion I always cringe when I see a public official pander to religious groups. I get absolute beside myself with rage though, when that pandering leads to asinine statements like McCain suggested. That there should be a religious test of sorts. In his view only a Christian who shares his views makes him comfortable as President. I understand that desperate people will say anything to get elected. But trying to rewrite our history and the Constitution really pisses me off. McCain should know better and probably does. What does it say about our times that people are willing to put their hand on their holy book and swear to uphold a document they find to be inconvenient and outdated? Call me an alarmist, I'm merely paying attention which is more than most Americans do, but this trend of dismissing the backbone of our democracy, the document that protects our freedoms from tyranny of the majority, has me looking towards Canada. But I'm no coward, I'm going to stay and fight these right wing religious zealots. It has become more and more apparent judging by the words that come out of Republican's (and some Democrats) mouths that we need to seriously revisit our Constitution. Free speech is under assault by politicians who forgot their oath. They believe they are some kind of moral avatars who have to tell the ignorant electorate what to think and how to act. The ethically and morally bankrupt try to legislate to us what is ethical and moral. The part of less government intrusion apparently now prefers the government to tell them what's offensive. They still insist that there is no right to privacy guarantee when it comes to a woman's body, despite the 4th Amendment's protection that we be secure in our own person's. The writ of habeas corpus and the Geneva conventions which we ratified decades ago are now quaint. And what's more alarming Republicans now trust the government to decide when they are justified in using it. Who needs separations of powers any more? Why not allow the executive branch to do what ever they desire using the awesome power of government to do things in secret, with no oversight or accountability? In other words, who needs the Constitution anymore, we have conservatism now. These guys really should be called the anti-constitutionalists. Let's face it they want this to be a Christian nation, whatever that means, it depends on which denomination you ask. They don't want free speech when it's inconvenient. They will ignore laws and precedent to achieve their vision of what they perceive to be what America should be. Not what the Constitution says, but what they envision. These same people envision a lot, like Iraq for instance. They envisioned all kinds of great things that never came to be. Which is why we have a constitution in the first place. To protect us from idiots who think they know what's best for us. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqXt http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqXt/commentary#comments Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:30:47 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqXt BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqXt/ I've never been a fan of Rush Limbaugh or of his opinions but would never suggest he has no right to say what he wants. Even if he is full of it. But now that the Congress has officially made statements in both chambers condemning the infamous MoveOn.org ad and any questioning of the character of the military. Limbaugh's comment is just as inflammatory and Congress has sent a precedent in addressing this type of speech. And this illustrates perfectly why it was a stupid and purely political move on the part of the Republicans and an equally foolish move for the Democratic leadership to even allow a vote regarding political speech. Limbaugh was talking to a caller on his show. He claimed to be a member of the military who claimed the media wasn't talking to the right kind of soldier. In the caller's experience, he said the "real soldiers" were not against the current policies of the Bush Administration. Rush chimed in the media talks to "phony soldiers." In Limbaugh's defense, he claims he was referring to a specific individual who apparently lied about his service who was critical of the war. And in the context of the audio available on line I have to admit that could fit. However, even if it's true that he really was referring back to that specific "phony" his comment is open to criticism and fodder for a "gotcha" media cycle. One that has made Mr. Limbaugh a wealthy man. He has a track record of taking completely out of context comments of Democrats as well as a swami like "insight" into the psyche of the "libs" as he calls them. He has little credibility for getting his facts straight and his psychoanalysis of the left has always been way off the mark. Though he has millions of listeners I think it's safe to say that he represents a more "extreme" view. After all, he did tell troops in Afghanistan that there were millions of Americans who didn't support them or their mission. An extreme lie. Ironic then, Mr. Limbaugh would face criticism by a usually quiet and apathetic Democratic leadership, and might actually be taken out of context when he has devoted his career at doing the same. He has a right to say what he wants. Any kind of act of congress will only compound the problem. And normally I would prefer that our representatives in DC only casually broach this kind of speech, misinterpreted or not. As I was for the MoveOn.org ad. Unfortunately some conservatives don't comprehend something until they feel it for themselves. In Limbaugh's case he hasn't learned. A man who railed against drug users then found to be a drug abuser hasn't exhibited that he has learned anything from his experience. But maybe others will see how dangerous it is for Congress to start condemning political speech. After all, hearing the arguments against the MoveOn.org ad, they were most certainly taken out of context and exaggerated and used for political purposes. A diversion from much more important work and a distraction for the public. As it appears by all accounts that Patreaus was less than forthcoming, only validated the MoveOn.org ad. Every other governmental report contradicted much of his testimony which he gave without being sworn in. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. So where's the condemnation form the Reoublican party and the White House regarding Rush's comments some have perceived as being a swipe at a good chunk of our military, both active and retired? Some Democrats have issued statements, capitalizing on the moment. And emphasizing a point. Once the Congress starts deciding what's acceptable speech and starts to officially condemn it the can of worms is open. Speech goes both ways, taken out of context or not, being an honest opinion or not, who the hell is Congress to judge that speech by officially condemning it? http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZy http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZy/commentary#comments Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:32:09 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZy BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 1 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqZy/ Free speech opponent Duncan Hunter, Republican from California, is threatening to cut off funding to Columbia University because they invited Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to come speak. I don't know his motives and won't speculate. I can only say it's fool hardy. These assaults on free speech are not healthy. I've heard all kinds of reasons why some find free speech as being dangerous. From we're aiding the terrorists or giving comfort to the enemy by speaking ill of the Iraq war or the President. I never understood that logic. It's never really been explained. They just kind of blurt it out like "bringing up torture only aids the enemy!" When it's painfully obvious that the torture itself does that. Or something like "criticizing the President in a time of war only helps the terrorists!" Huh? How so? But I see the pattern with their profound inability to understand what the hell we're talking about. We say "we should support the troops by bringing them home" but they comprehend "we hate the troops, and America which we always blame first." We criticize one General and they figure we hate the entire military. So I'm not too surprised that some body with an (R) after his name has to exercise his free speech by trying to cut off funding to a prestigious University because he doesn't like the speech of somebody they invited to speak. This misses the value of honoring all free speech. President of Columbia University Lee Bollinger introduced Ahmadinejad by taking him to task for everything from his denial of the Holocaust to Iran's involvement in Iraq killing US soldiers. In what other setting could this have occurred? And what American could resist having an opportunity to fully skewer Iran's current president? In closing Prof. Bollinger stated this to his school's guest, "Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more. " Cut funding? This guy should get a freakin' medal! He articulately and forcefully called the guy out on the spot. But the knee jerk reaction for Duncan Hunter is this was bad, they should be punished, they somehow aided him by giving him a platform to further make an a$$ of himself. Bill O'Reilly called it giving him "stature." Really? If Bollinger is correct, and I believe he is, that every time Ahmadinejad opens his mouth Iranians at home roll their eyes. So giving him a forum to further embarrass himself and his radical views should be commended. What a public service! And notice how rude the Professor is? Mmmmmmmm love that free speech! The nerve of him talking to his guest that way, and in this case the guest certainly deserved it. Read his introduction here. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html This new surge to suppress free speech has to stop. Disagreeing is one thing but Duncan Hunter here wants to threaten a University by yanking federal funds. Senator John Cornyn (R) offered an amendment to the latest military spending bill that reads, "To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces." This is a direct response to the MoveOn.org ad. It means little technically as it is not a law, however the Senate as a body in a official capacity made a statement against free speech because they found it rude. That's not their job. They have much more important things to do. "Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection." General Colin Powell http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZl http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZl/commentary#comments Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:56:44 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZl BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 6 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqZl/ The letters F, U, C, and K. No one word can place the point on an exclamation like those four letters put together. Do they belong in civil conversation? Probably not. But civility is dead. Don't blame those "radical, loony liberal, baby killing, treasonous" groups like MoveOn.org. We've endured every name in the book while civilly explaining our views. We've been unfairly and inaccurately labeled for years by those less than civil pundits on the right. FoxNews has helped perpetuate this. Their hosts don't go a day without vilifying and demonizing those they disagree with. If one needs to place blame on the lack of civility in political discourse the blame falls squarely on those who control the message. And yeah, it goes all the way up to Bush. The "uniter" has spent his entire presidency carefully placing a wedge between Americans. Careful to parse his words by claiming he isn't questioning the patriotism of political opponents just before he does just that. Over and over again. Dick Cheney on the floor of the Senate told a Democratic Senator to "go F___ himself" years ago. He has made no secret his disdain for any dissent. Just like the right wing media hacks. Go to the bookstore and look through the political studies section at some of the titles written by these thugs. "Godless" "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" "Useful Idiots" Read the sub titles to get an idea of just how much these people hate liberals and Democrats. Note to yourself how many books and how long ago they were printed and you will see a long and profitable genre of hate, misinformation and slanderous accusations from the right towards the left. This is why I find it so amusing that the folks who have made a career out of being uncivil are suddenly offended when liberals or any other critics drop decorum and give it back. Enter the recent student editorial titled "Taser this….F___ Bush." The explicative spelled out in all its glory on the printed page to the ire of many prudish and hypocritical Americans. Hypocritical because they have less outrage at the invectives spewed by their favorite radio show commentators and political pundits a daily basis. I could give you a dozen instances of what many consider to be hate speech that have occurred this year alone by these cretins. Isn't it the stereotype that Democrats and liberals never fight back? Probably because when they do, as MoveOn and this college news paper did, they are crucified and labeled as being rude. So sorry if your offended. Not really. I could care less. My country is being hijacked and our civil liberties are being flushed down the toilet. Everything that made us a great nation is being dismantled ignored or re-written as something to be avoided. Civility can kiss my a$$. We can return to civil political discourse when the lunatics are no longer in charge of the asylum. In other words, F___ being polite to a bunch of self righteous hypocrites and ne'er do wells. And yes, especially F___ Bush. A traitor to the Constitution he swore to uphold. An administration that gives more rights to corporations than people. A war profiteering bunch who gleefully toss our tax dollars at their friends. A group that believes public relations is more important to FEMA than actually providing disaster relief. A lying group of lying liars. Excuse me if I seem rude but F___ them! Free speech doesn't have to be civil, polite or courteous. A polite lie is still a lie. The truth is far more messy. When you witness the absurd, Miss Manners goes out the window. It's laughable to me that Republican Senators wish to censure an advocacy group for using a pun but are willing to stand aside and allow the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear and slander John Kerry's military service or allow triple amputee, Vietnam veteran Max Cleland be compared to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein because he opposed the "Patriot Act." Barbara Boxer from California offered a resolution to condemn all of this, including the MoveOn ad but the Republicans would have none of it. They only wish to censure liberals. They wish to censor speech they simply don't like. So if the words from the left offend some, suck it up, too F___ing bad. More insults and more vulgar language is coming your way. We're only playing on the field and by the rules the Republican thugs and bullies have invented. Don't like it? F___ you. We're trying to save the country from radical conservative ideologues and unfortunately we have to use language they understand. F___ them, F___ Rush and the rest of the jackals and F___ civility if it means capitulating to the right wing talking heads. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZf http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZf/commentary#comments Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:55:25 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZf BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqZf/ "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Senator, you swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Yet you voted along with the Republican party to censure anyone who verbally criticizes a member of the military or of the armed forces. This seems to be in conflict with the oath you took. This stunt of mock outrage brought on by the Republican minority in the Senate regarding an ad purchased by the group MoveOn.org that referred to General Patreaus as General Betray Us. This is a tame statement compared to the daily ranting on Fox News programs and right wing talk radio. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said much worse and wholly inaccurate statements regarding Senator John Kerry's military service. Former Senator Max Cleleland endured a despicable campaign against him that compared him to Osama bin Laden. These transgressions and slanders are protected speech. Yet only now, when a statement is made by an advocacy group millions strong, that reflects the sentiments of millions more Americans has a group been censured by the Senate. I am not familiar with another instance when the Senate made such a bold condemnation of political speech. Does the Constitution no longer matter? Was your oath just a stunt? You also voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that denies habeas corpus rights to "Enemy Combatants." A designation that is decided almost solely by the President. You are aware, with your back ground in law, how vital habeas corpus is to our legal system. The Constitutional requirements to suspend habeas corpus, invasion or rebellion, have not been met. Yet you voted for its suspension. This goes beyond partisan views. Why are you contributing to the dismantling of Constitutionally protected rights, essential to our democracy? More importantly, why aren't you standing up to protect these rights? Don't you recognize how dangerous these un-Constitutional acts are to the future of our nation? The preamble of the Constitution promises to keep these rights for our posterity. Is our most sacred founding document now as quaint as the Geneva Conventions, or the FISA courts? Does the rule of law only apply to some individuals and not others? If so, why? I'm a concerned citizen, a member of MoveOn.org. Will you be censuring Senator McCain's comments that we should leave America? And finally, when can I expect you to begin honoring your oath of office? http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZv http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZv/commentary#comments Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:17:18 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqZv BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 505 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqZv/ Before we go blaming Congress for flip flopping, let's review the authorization they gave Bush to invade Iraq. Two critical benchmarks were not met that Bush had to for the authorization to be valid. One, Bush was to go back to the UN security council before he used our military. When Bush got caught spying on the offices of the different countries on the security council, he ignored that requirement. Second, Bush flatly lied when he claimed Saddam would not let the weapons inspectors back in. They were in Iraq when Bush made this claim. If blame goes to Congress, it's for not holding Bush to the standards they had authorized. The Congress was given a white washed report on the threat posed by Iraq, full of dubious claims the intelligence community disagreed with. I don't pardon those who trusted the administration implicitly or felt threatened by the right wing bullies in the media. They should have stood up and done the right thing, that is, ask the tough questions. We see now the danger of a rubber stamp congress and an abusive executive branch. But let's not forget there were several people who did not give the president authorization to use force against Iraq. Unfortunately not many are running for president right now. One can only hope they learned from their mistakes. It's also important to remember the American public and Congress expected the White House and pentagon to have an exit strategy. A plan for the aftermath. This idea that we should have known that this would take a long time isn't a fair criticism. The responsibility for the failure and deterioration into civil war falls squarely on the shoulders of the chicken hawks who failed to consider the results of their reckless actions. The reconstruction was handed over to 30 something Federalist society free market morons. The economic ideology prevalent in the neo-con movement, that the private sector solves all problems, was given a chance to work. It failed miserably. The military was disbanded and sent home armed. Ammo dumps and stores of weapons were left open to looters. These were not the responsibilities of congress. We were told by Rumsfeld that the news was showing the same guy looting over and over again. Then, that there was no insurgency, that freedom was messy. A civil war between sectarian groups was denied for almost a year. Contractors and hired guns infiltrated our military and guided the torture policies from the highest levels of government, sadly this was by design. Again, congress had no idea what was being done in our name. Remember the incident of the burning hum vee, the bodies being dragged out and hung from a bridge. Those were contractors acting without military approval. This is significant in that the decision to allow non-military personnel to run around a country we had just liberated from a brutal dictator acting as if they were soldiers has had disastrous consequences. These contractors have no code. They are not required to adhere to a military code of conduct. In fact the Bush administration has assured that they are not legally bound by laws. Again, congress had nothing to do with this. Congress also did not authorize the use of white phosphorous that sticks to human beings as it burns their flesh. An internationally banned substance that our troops were being ordered to use. The vast majority of Democrats voted against warrantless wire tapping. It was the blue dog, or conservative Dems that went along with virtually all the Republicans. The freshmen Democrats have been consistent in opposing the Bush administration and gives me hope that perhaps the party and the political process can be saved. Regardless of the authorization to make legal what was illegal in Bush's assault on our civil liberties, it's still un-constitutional. And the specter of a Democrat in the White House will surely compel the neo-conservative Supreme Court to acknowledge that. Congress did not authorize torture techniques that have become recruitment tools for our enemies. They did not authorize secret rendition flights to countries like Syria. And they did not initially authorize the un-Constitutional practice of spying on American citizens, data mining of our phone calls and emails, or the indefinite detention of persons the President alone saw fit to call "enemy combatants." There is plenty of blame to toss around for the mess that is Iraq, the rise in global terror as a result and the view the rest of the world has towards us. The bulk of it however goes to the commander in chief. George W. Bush should be dragged to an international court and tried for war crimes. To try and lay the blame on congress is disingenuous. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqtt http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqtt/commentary#comments Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:42:20 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqtt BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cqtt/ Shameless Republican tactics in the House, again. During debate on a spending bill in the House Republicans claimed two false hoods for political gain. One, they claimed they voted on an amendment to strip from a spending bill housing assistance for illegal immigrants. None exists, it was a blatantly false charge on the Republicans part in an effort to paint the Democrats as being for illegal immigration. Again, no such suggestion has been made by Democrats to offer housing benefits for illegal immigrants, that is a lie. Second the Republicans accused the Democrats of closing the vote early to thwart Republicans efforts to stop something that didn't exist in the first place. The final vote was 216-212. The machine that records the tally malfunctioned giving the Republicans the impression that they had been duped. The correct tally defeated the Republican effort. But that didn't stop them from using it for political charges against the Democrats. During the 109th Congress the Republicans frequently violated House rules, including holding votes open for hours, bribing other congressmen to get their votes as well as denying Democrats the rights to hold any kind of committee hearings and shutting off their microphones during debates. The fact that the current crop of hold overs including Marilyn Musgrave and the disgraced and indicted Tom Delay would suggest the Democrats are violating rules is as shameful as it is laughable. Shame on them and shame on the Daily Times Call for printing a letter to the editor that made these same ridiculous and false claims. Facts matter, so do opinions and the DTC should have printed an editorial note correcting these false hoods. The Democrats aren't perfect but the partisan lies coming from the Republicans should be pointed out and it is they who should be demonized for their callous political maneuvering. Pay close attention to these votes, Republicans are counting on your ignorance to get your votes. They do not care about the electorate, only elections. Shame on them, the worst kind of politicians plating the worst kind of politics. f you want to wade through the legislation do a Google search for "agricultural spending bill" and Thomas.loc.gov, Congress' web site has it. But if you want a summary of the account Washington Post offers a decent one here, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080300878.html?hpid=topnews One more breaking tid bit, the Democrats have agreed to have a committee look into this supposed stolen vote. The Democrats are calling the Republicans on their bluff. This reminds me of the hey the Republicans made about the Fairness Doctrine. No legislation introduced to bring it back but they introduced legislation to keep it from happening. Erecting a straw man argument for their constituents to get angry about. Can the Republicans get any lower or debase? Probably. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqcR http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqcR/commentary#comments Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:33:21 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqcR BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqcR/ The double standard of Republican's love for "free markets" and their shameless pandering to the ultra wealthy and corporate power is nothing short of astonishing. The Federal Reserve just dumped 25 billion dollars into our banking infrastructure, but won't raise taxes to fix our roads, bridges, schools and other services that benefit the public good. On Thursday our indignant president shot down the proposal to place a small tax on gasoline to help pay for our infrastructure, choosing instead to take a shot at Democrats implying their priorities are wrong. Republican Senator Ted Stevens once threatened to hold up a spending bill so he could get millions to fund his "bridge to nowhere" in his home state of Alaska. The president wasn't so self righteous back then. The neo-conservative philosophy that has hijacked the Republican party believes that "free" markets and privatization should replace sensible taxation and spending. Tell me how it's a free market in giving billions of our tax dollars in no bid contracts to big campaign contributors and the former employer of our Vice President, Haliburton. Tell me how it's a free market to throw more of our tax dollars into purely political activities in the Executive branch to ensure the 100 year Republican majority Karl Rove is so wild about. What's free about welfare for corporations that couldn't "git 'er done" in said free markets and needs the fed to bail them out? The Republicans who controlled the 109th Congress consistently filled spending bills with their own pork, exceeding the president's budgetary wishes but we didn't hear him complain about his own parties spending habits. You hear a lot about the "death tax" that effects an incredibly small percentage of 1% of the population, but you don't hear that each baby born in the United States is $20,000 in the hole thanks to the spending of this president. Credit card companies now act more like loan sharks. Allowed to jack up previously agreed upon annual percentage rates on their whim. Bankruptcy laws give them the power to take your house. Mortgage companies can do the same thing. Private companies have more rights than people. Our federal government is driven by the desires of medical insurance companies, defense contractors, credit card companies and energy companies. Airlines can screw consumers and employees, while CEOs take home millions, lay off thousands and have the comfort of knowing that they can and will be bailed out by Washington DC. There is nothing free about these markets. The deck is severely stacked against regular working folks. The pendulum swings. People lose their jobs, pensions and health care, their homes and the government doesn't want to help. They claim it's simply market forces, there is nothing they can do. How refreshing it would be if they had that attitude towards corporations and industries. This neo-con ideology took years to take over our government. They love to trot out phrases like "tax and spend" liberals. They have demonized social programs and FDR. Calling anyone that wants to invest in the public's interest a communist or socialist. You can fool some of the people some of the time but if enough people actually begin to feel the effects of these ridiculous economic policies, they tire pretty quickly of the same rhetoric that used to work. Conservatives are losing the electorate. Free markets that ain't free for working folks will be taken back. As the pendulum swings, conservatism may never recover. In a couple of decades when we have publicly funded elections, health care, schools and transportation, when people reclaim their constitutional rights and corporations are no longer considered persons, we will look back at the era of conservatism thankful we survived it. If not, the great experiment that is our country will be over and will have failed. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqcp http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqcp/commentary#comments Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:41:31 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/Cqcp BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/Cqcp/ An old rich white guy doesn't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers is an oversimplification. There are plenty of legitimate beefs with things like Affirmative Action and the exploits of Jess Jackson but this statement doesn't add anything to that. Our country has a longer history of slavery and treating minorities as second class citizens as it does not. I'd like to believe we have reached color blindness but we haven't. Has anyone ever robbed a bank with a car or a baseball bat? This old analogy of guns don't kill people.... is garbage. A child could pick up a gun and become a killer. I am all for the right to bear arms but to make this comparison is absurd. Guns make it very very easy for people to kill, much easier than a baseball bat or a car. If you feel homosexuality is wrong it is a phobia. You have an irrational fear of something you don't wish to understand. It's bigotry. And it's an opinion. Everyone has the right to be intolerant. Just like everyone has the right to call you an asshole if they are intolerant of your intolerance. Name one city that has a black population of 70%. It's easy to be for racial profiling when it's your race doing the profiling. Another over simplification. How many times are you going to tolerate being pulled over because you are black and successful enough to have a nice car before you start resenting the man? I doubt Mr. rooney has ever experienced this. Here in Colorado if your last name is Hispanic , many assume your legal status of citizenship. It doesn't matter if your a third generation American or not. I know that would piss me off. I wish people would speak English too, there's no reason to be hateful about it however. The world is changing, our country is changing, you can either except it and try to come to some reasonable common ground or you will be dragged kicking and screaming. Bitching an moaning. The Constitution is most certainly a living document. If it is not then the Amendments to it mean nothing. If it is not a living document, then we have no right to religious freedom, of speech, a right to bear arms, a woman's right to vote, minority rights etc. We are member of a world community, like it or not, we can respectfully disagree with foreign governments opinions but to simply dismiss them is foolish. "I don't hate the rich I don't pity the poor." Nice guy. I don't hate the rich either but to not pity the poor is pretty sad. Not very Christian, and I'm an atheist. So does that make me a better Christian than Andy Rooney? I think Bill Gates stole an operating system from Apple, slapped the name Windows on it and used some shrewd business decisions to position his company into a monopoly. Offering a shoddy product and making it the only game in town using unfair business practices. It does tick me off that better operating systems have been developed and killed or stolen by his company. De-regulated markets don't necessarily produce the best products and Windows is a prime example of that. Buy a Mac and tell me Windows is a better product. Market share does not reward innovation but stifles it. Planned obsolescence is good for business, not so much for consumers. I'm sick of people bashing political correctness. It's simply trying to be polite. It's civility. It may approach the absurd but it isn't hurting a damn thing to be nice to people and show them some respect. The Pledge of Allegiance never had the phrase "under God" until half a century after it was written. Written by *gasp* a socialist and a pastor no less who saw no need to inject the creator of the universe into the simple pledge. "In God We Trust" became out national motto around the same time, about 50 years ago. Unfortunately it turned God into an empty generic term, exactly what James Madison feared. It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. It's easy for any schmuck to hedge their bets and say they believe in a fairy tale. These people are Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants, agnostics, etc. etc. etc. And I doubt the number is that high. Incidentally the Constitution and our form of government is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Telling them to just be quiet is un-American. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqW4 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqW4/commentary#comments Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:52:19 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqW4 BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqW4/ I can no longer listen to the president speak. But unfortunately I have a civic duty to know what comes out of his mouth, what he signs and what laws he breaks next. So I read the transcript. The tortured, tortured transcript. I feel the utmost sympathy for him. I don't think he knows what's going on when he speaks. Unless he's on point. Then he smirks every time he makes a statement without screwing it up. That's why I can't watch. I'm not trying to demean the man. He does that on his own. As I said I do feel for him. As my father would say, sarcastically while holding his finger up tucked up to his shoulder as he leaned in and said "I can feel you, but I just can't reach you." I don't like him too. Bush I mean, not my old man; he's cool. But the conflict within me can be overwhelming. Here's a guy. Kind of dumb. Seriously, I know he's the President and all, but he's never exhibited smarts. Let's face it. He's screwed up a lot. Focused on the wrong priorities and kind of made us as a country, really bad off. It can and probably will get worse. I hope I'm wrong. But when I see the guy speak I just start blushing. I'm embarrassed for him. Even when reporters lob soft balls and he acts like a bratty child I can't help but wince for him. I'm a compassionate person, what can I say. But I'm also an American. So I read the transcript. And I have to say I'm shocked he's actually attacking the Democrats for not allowing him to illegally spy on Americans unimpeded today. I'm just a little surprised the guy would go back to the same old "accuse the Democrats of being weak on terror" spiel again. Is he kidding? I know we have short attention spans but, this guy was more concerned with clearing brush at his ranch when the CIA told him bin Laden was about to strike us. This is the guy literally strumming a guitar in a photo op as the levees in New Orleans had burst and entire city was drowning. This is the guy who sat dumb struck with a children's book on his lap as he was told a second plane had just hit the World Trade Center. The guy who did nothing to prepare for something he was warned about repeatedly beforehand. This is the guy, responsible for the policies that our own intelligence estimates suggest that we are less safe than before because of these policies. Torture tends to rile people up you know. Whether your twisted mind thinks it's justified or not, it works even better as a recruitment tool for the wing nuts who want to destroy us. It's called backlash. George Bush has done everything Osama has wanted. He wanted a holy war, he got it. He wanted us out of Saudi Arabia, so we left. He wanted to be free, and he is. He wanted us destroyed economically, and we're well on our way. Buy Yen. You know how much the dollar is worth? No, because George Bush doesn't want you to know anymore. And he has the nerve, the gall, to imply the Democrats are soft on terror because they are about to leave for vacation and he hasn't received the authority to continue to spy illegally with sole authority and over sight yet?! He's nothing if not consistent. It's sad really. Watching someone go to the well once too often. When the public realization is obvious. No one really trusts the words that come out of his mouth. No one believes the guy any more, even his supporters. The kool-aid drinkers merely accept the President's indiscretions towards truth telling because he has to because of those mean old Democrats who just hate him for no good reason. Most of the country is wise to the guy by now. It's safe to assume that he simply can't be trusted. His words have the opposite affect. I hope he keeps yapping. It makes the Democrats look like they have a spine and are standing up to him. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqWL http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqWL/commentary#comments Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:15:34 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqWL BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqWL/ Before someone screams "socialist!" I have a bit of news. Liberals, main stream ones like myself, love money. Yep, it's true. We loves the dough. Like making it, but not as much as having it. I'm in debt up to the legal limit, no kidding. I have an iPod named Black Francis. It's has my entire music collection of 12,600 songs of 512 artists and 1077 albums, 36 days 2 hrs. 40 min. and 10 sec. on it. I have a wide screen TV and an APR in the low 30s. I love to consume, try to be responsible about it but I admit, I am overwhelmed with crap. A garage and attic full of "stuff." Another shocker for you. I hate paying taxes. I love money so much I actually hate paying the government my hard earned cash! Then I remember I work in an industry almost totally subsidized though government related contracts. Those would be paid with taxes. Then I remember how worried I am that the next generation of high school and college graduates maybe smaller in number and dumber that they should be. I like good public schools enough to part with some of my hard earned money. Sue me. Here's the kicker. I don't have kids! How stupid am I? I mean imagine, being so concerned about other people's well being and a better place to live and being foolish enough to actually pay for it too! Boy am I a sucker. Then I remember too, how much I enjoy driving over bridges that are well maintained and publicly owned. Because it makes me feel safe knowing that my small contribution to the public coffers help keep it that way. This bridge enables people to get from point A to B with ease. So they can work and shop make and spend money they wouldn't be able to otherwise. It is important that the interest in maintaining the bridge is a public one and not one based solely on profit. I hate seeing poor people and homeless people. Somehow it occurs to me that those folks could use a little help, some opportunities they might not otherwise have and if they succeed it benefits all of us. And entrepreneurs would be more likely to risk it all to start a small business if they knew there was a social safety net. So if they failed or calamity happened they wouldn't be totally wiped out. And businesses could devote more cash to actually doing business if they didn't have to pay for their workers health care. And people who don't have insurance cost emergency rooms more in the long run. Kids shouldn't suffer. It makes them damaged adults. That doesn't benefit society. Maybe some investment there for the public good would be; well; good. I feel dirty for actually wanting to pay for that! Silly liberal that I am. I also remember how much I hate my debt. Then I really worry about the national debt. My debt doesn't seem so bad after that. I figure it's my country and; call me naive; but I feel slightly responsible. I'd like to keep more of my money but I have to do something about it. So will millions of others for years to come. It's in our national interests to do so after all. I'm so selfish! What's my point? Taxes don't mean socialism or communism. Taxes are the price "we the people" have to cough up to make us a strong society. We pay taxes for our national interests. We pay taxes for our security, for our future and for our perseverance. For ourselves and our posterity. I wish we didn't have to. But if you think about it, it's a small price to pay. And it's the least you could for having the good fortune to be a citizen of the greatest country on earth! Yes! I am suggesting, it's a patriotic to pay your taxes! Look at me, I'm crazy! The zeal for uber-capitalists to privatize functions better served under the public's control is destroying our schools, our roads and bridges, our public transportation, all things public should be controlled by the public. How? Through government. So sorry slackers! You have to participate in the process to make sure your tax dollars are spent wisely. To assume that the private sector and "free" markets will do what's best for us is a fool's gamble. As foolish as forking over money to the government or public trust and then not ensuring it's being utilized properly. And as foolish as thinking that if you kept more of your "own" money you'd be so much better off. It ain't that simple. Anti-tax zealots and free marketeers should be directing their ire at our federal government's poor spending choices and unprecedented debt to foreign nations. Not at eliminating taxes. No taxes=no infrastructure=no commerce=no markets=no income=no taxes. It's a viscous circle. I suggest we start re-prioritizing our fund allocation, and I suggest we learn to stop worrying and love the tax. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqW3 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqW3/commentary#comments Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:23:18 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqW3 BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqW3/ Nothing exposes the different philosophies of government between liberals and conservatives like health care. The liberal view is that government should provide for the commons. That is, things that benefit society at large. Roads, infrastructure, health care a social safety net etc. Liberal government actively protects citizens by placing regulations on industry. Liberals believe that some things are not effective if left up to the markets to provide. Conservatives view the government as an evil entity to be scorned. They don't want many regulations on industry. They don't believe the government has a responsibility to provide any kind of safety net or protection to citizens. They don't want the government in the business of health care. Frequently they will characterize efforts by liberals as being socialist or anti-capitalist. Ours is a representative government. It's a republican democracy. We have the power to elect our representatives and criticize them. The government isn't to be trusted implicitly. It takes work on our part. Part of the price of freedom as Jefferson said, is eternal vigilance. It takes more than casting a vote and walking away hoping that everything works out. It is the best form of government in the world. Viewing it with disdain and complete distrust is counterproductive and frankly anti-American. Especially if you are an elected official. For several years conservatives in power have held the view that government is to be feared, beat down, or so weakened it can be strangled in the bath tub. In their zeal to achieve this goal, corporate interests have supplanted citizens interests. Faith in "free" markets and the private sector has out sourced many essential government functions and the profit motive doesn't always deliver what's best for society at large. Our prison systems, our health care systems, our road ways, even elements of our military and intelligence gathering activities have been turned over to private companies and industries, some foreign owned. This doesn't serve our national interests. Public schools left in shambles and demonizing teachers does not serve our national interests. Providing corporate welfare while taking away citizens welfare does not serve our national interests. Leaving health care up to profit driven companies does not serve our national interests. The government; our government is "We the people." A cynic would say that it is not; that it's a self serving entity full of corrupt politicians only interested in lining their pockets. That description better fits the private business sector. Government only becomes corrupted if the citizenry is lazy. The conservative philosophy prevalent today is not serving the citizenry. It places corporate interests above the interests of the individual and the individual suffers. Today in Congress the debate is raging over whether to extend and expand a program designed to provide health care to our nation's children. Liberals argue for it claiming that providing health care now is not only the moral thing to do, it is beneficial and less costly in the long run by ensuring kids are healthy. Conservatives argue against it because it's a government program. They would rather children go without health care because they hate government but they don't realize that their hatred for government hurts the people. That is why you can't claim to love your country but despise the government for which it represents. Conservatism is destroying our country from within. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqWW http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqWW/commentary#comments Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:24:27 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqWW BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 0 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqWW/ If you don't believe that the Bush administration should be impeached you haven't been paying attention. Impeachment is written into the Constitution to prevent the kinds of abuses the Bush administration is guilty of doing. No crime needs to be committed to be impeached, but there is evidence of many violations of the law. Conservatives and liberals can agree. There are plenty of examples from Barbara Olshansky's book "The Case for Impeachment" to recent articles by former Reagan Administration officials Bruce Fein and Paul Craig Roberts as well as former Nixon council John Dean. Are Republicans prepared for President Hillary Clinton's new powers should she win in 08? Are they prepared to trust Hillary or any Democrat for that matter, to have the authority Bush has granted himself through Executive Order; and the new precedent he is setting for his authority to amend laws passed by Congress with signing statements that allow him to simply ignore them? How are they going to handle a Democratic President who can now round up "enemy combatants" on American soil, detain them indefinitely without charge or the right to challenge their imprisonment? Will they trust the authority now granted to the President of the United States, that at their discretion they alone can assume control of all functions of government? Read some of Bush's Executive Orders. The military is now allowed to fire on us, here, in our neighborhoods, if the President chooses. If you're hindering his plans for Iraq he can seize your assets. I wish I was making this up but I'm not. http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqWZ http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqWZ/commentary#comments Wed, 01 Aug 2007 18:55:34 EDT http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/post/bingvangorden/CqWZ BingVanGorden http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/profile_picture/25bd1354620e434bc8_ixsmv2dwg.jpg BingVanGorden 40 http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/page/community/comment_rss/CqWZ/