Friday, December 30, 2005

The year in review

At the start of the year I was getting despondent. The President was shopping a social security revolution that was going to leave our poorest citizens without the means to survive retirement. The Iraq war was taking a back seat and it looked plausible for the President to drive his agenda forward. He had a successful meeting with European leaders and the world seemed to understand their was little choice but to deal with Bush. Dean took the reigns of the Democratic Party and immediately announced that he would support pro-life candidates for President. Wolfowitz was rewarded with a promotion to head the IMF.

In March the tide began to turn, the allegations against Tom Delay were made public. Terri Schiavo was front page news and court after court was ruling in favor of her husband. Iraq was back on the front burner after disquiet between ruling parties. At home death penalty convictions were being overturned. Robert Harlan's sentence was commuted after it was shown jurors used the bible to help them come to a verdict.

Following the death of Schiavo, Bush made the following comment: "I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected." This after he executed 152 people while governor of Texas. Still his comments were not enough for Christian conservatives who demanded stronger language from the President. A rift between moderate and far-right wing Republicans was emerging.

Democrats were able to defeat the nomination of John Bolton to the UN. But Bush determined to appoint the worst man for the job, circumvented congress and gave him the job without their approval. It's about this time I started warming to the idea of a flat tax. I’m now convinced it's the best solution for tax reform.

In May Bush made this classic comment; "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." It's always nice to hear your President paraphrasing Hitler. People were getting fed up with the war and pork barrel spending had gotten to a point where the whole country was getting offended. Social security reform was dead in the water and the Presidents approval ratings were down across the board. With a baby on the way I suddenly found myself concerned about family values. Not the family values that needed me to start going to church to imbibe but practical values that would ensure my son has a healthy upbringing.

We had another shark summer. CNN, Fox and MSNBC, when not running stories about miracles, made sure that every shark within 50 miles of the US coastline had their 15 minutes. Meanwhile Robert Mugabe was forcefully relocating the poorest people in Harare by burning down their homes. It was a form of gerrymandering that would have made Tom DeLay proud. At this point Scooter Libby wasn't getting much air time but it was apparent that Karl Rove knew about Valerie Plame and had discussed her identity with a reporter. Tom Cruise sold crazy over the summer and made it clear that actors really should stick to acting (that includes Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter).

The London bombings indicated that the war on terror was far from won and in reality would probably never be won. The bombers were Britons of Pakistani descent who had tentative links to Al Qaida. Apparently the war in Iraq had strengthened their resolve. In the US the media was praying for a bad hurricane season, if only they knew. The president successfully lobbied for his CAFTA legislation and we started hearing about CIA detentions in Europe.

We found out in August that more than 1.1 million Americans had joined the ranks of what the government officially considered the impoverished. That's $19,000 for a family of 4. In my city that would last a single person 6 months. About this time Hugo Chavez was becoming more popular in South America, popular enough for Pat Robinson to call for his assassination. Gas prices started to rise and the creases in the Republican agenda were beginning to tear.

Hurricane Katrina was a wake up call for many liberals and moderates. Watching starving US citizens in their own country, left in conditions unsuitable for animals many Americans came to the realization that the current social policy had left many people behind. I say liberals and moderates because conservatives are blind to the cause of those who are less fortunate than them. Sure they will donate time or money but are not interested in adopting policies that would benefit the poor in the long term. Hence a compassionate conservative is an oxymoron as emphasized by the recent Republican lead reduction in Medicare and Medicaid benefits for the poor and the elderly.

In October avian flu, the Iraq war, the failed nomination of Harriet Miers and the indictment of Scooter Libby added to the woes of an already battered administration. Alito’s nomination gave evangelicals some hope but the President's wish for a speedy "up or down vote" was ignored. A new study revealed that the incarceration rate in the US was 25% greater than any other country in the world. At the same time the US had the worst crime rate of any G-8 country. Go figure.

Ecological catastrophe in Harbin reminded us all that China is still suffering the growing pains of a developing nation. In November the government announced that debt to China had ballooned to 1 trillion dollars. Not only did we still refuse to buy into Kyoto we lost leverage against a country that may eventually lead us into a global environmental meltdown.

This month the debate focused on the liberal conspiracy to destroy Christmas. Meanwhile we found out that many tsunami victims wouldn’t survive the winter. Promised funding hasn’t arrived and many families are starving. Now the American news media is focused on the story of an Iraqi 3 month old name Noor. She has spina bifida and without the assistance of benevolent US national guardsmen won’t last 45 days. Meanwhile President Bush announced that 35,000 Iraqi's have been killed during the current conflict. I wonder how many Noor’s die each day in Iraq without appropriate medical care and luxuries like clean water and electricity.

I wish everyone the best for 2006. Politically it will be an exciting year and I look forward to a continued healthy debate.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Bush Fascist Regime Winning War Against Insidious Quaker Threat

People in these blogs who argue in favor of the Bush regime's warrantless domestic spying always insist that it is only carried out against people who are most certainly communicating with foreign terrorists. Well, they can just go on deluding themselves forever, I suppose, but the truth is just as I predicted: This government has been exploiting their "political capitol" by using it as an excuse to become the fascist totalitarian regime they've been dreaming of ever since Prescott Bush and Adolph Hitler began sleeping together.

While they have pointedly ignored any attempts to bring down actual threats like Osama-Bin-Forgotten, they've been busily "protecting" us from oh-so-dangerous groups like like Greenpeace, P.E.T.A., a Catholic worker's group, and God only knows who else (source)... they're even spying on Quakers, for crying out loud!

So the next time one of you tries to counter our criticism of illegal domestic warrantles searches, invasion of privacy and trashing of the fourth amendment, please offer something else besides, "they're only spying on terrorists!"

Sunday, December 25, 2005

10 things I'd like from Santa

1) The resignation of Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens for pushing through the "bridge to nowhere" funding and trying to tie drilling in ANWR to national security
2) The defeat of Alito's nomination for the Supreme Court
3) The exposure of a gay love triangle involving Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bill O'Reilly
4) Fox News announcing that they will no longer use the slogan "fair and balanced" and will instead adopt a more appropriate mantra "bigoted and one-sided"
5) The revocation of Bill Frist's license to practice medicine for his video diagnosis of Terri Schiavo
6) Joseph Lieberman comes out of the closet and admits to being a Republican
7) A book written by Scott McClellan outlining how to lie to the press corp while keeping a straight face
8) Universal health care
9) A flat tax
10) The impeachment of George W Bush, for illegally spying on Americans

Sitting on Santa's lap these were the first 10 things that came into my head...

Friday, December 23, 2005

Defining the difference between liberals and conservatives

Agree or disagree Jack's response defining his affinity for conservatism deserves it's own post:

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are relative. That means that they shift as ideologies do. To understand conservative you also need to know what liberal is too.

In a purest sense, Webster gives a good definition of conservative as: disposition in politics to preserve what is established, a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

It defines liberal as: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Given these definitions I would often say that I fit the definition of liberal as often as I do conservative, but I don't think that these definitions get anywhere close to defining contemporary American liberalism and conservatism.

If you do take into consideration the above definition liberalism denotes movement, while conservative suggests a static state. One can live in a pure democracy and being conservative think that it should stay a pure democracy. Likewise, one can be under pure tyranny and fascism and being a conservative would think that it should remain so. Liberalism advocates "progress" or movement and it is based on whatever criteria of "progress" is and the individuals who define "progress". Following the above logic, a liberal can be in a pure democracy, and in the name of progress want to move away from it--going from individualism to egalitarianism (or when empowering government in its forceful form-totalitarianism). A liberal can be under fascism and want to "progress" away from it towards democracy. Since liberals are in a constant state of movement in the name of progress, it is hard to place a finger on them in terms of definitive political view--liberals today may not be the liberals of tomorrow. We could say that the founding fathers were liberals for wanting a better form of government, one based on freedom and liberty!

Now my definition of what a true American conservative should be, is an individual intent on maintaining the United States as it was intended by our founding fathers. Never before in the history of the world had a nation of this size been built on a foundation as close to a pure democracy as this one. (I realize we are a representative democracy, but England's national constitution, the closest cousin to ours, of the time granted more power to the government (House of Lords and Commons--keep in mind that many of those who came here to escape England were commoners--represented by the house of commons, largely Puritans at the time) and the monarchy than it did to the people). It was a nation founded largely on individualism--where success was based upon individual hard work and initiative, an environment that was conducive to such, with the primary tool of freedom to determine one's outcome or lack thereof. It embodied life's lessons that are often hard taught, but rewarding. Personal responsibility coupled with personal initiative, and each one accountable to all.

A true American conservative wants to preserve those ideals that brought out the greatness in people and a nation. It wants to conserve the Constitution with the understanding that it was those very tenets that gave we the people the power and withheld it from government.

Examples of ways that this affects my thoughts as a conservative:

I refuse to enable someone to fail. Social programs like welfare despoil an individual of initiative, and prevent them from succeeding. I would rather teach a man to feed himself than have him dependent upon others to do that. I would rather empower someone to self-respect through short termed tough love than to keep him dependent upon others.

Rights are earned. I don't have the right to own a million dollar mansion. I have to earn that right. True--there will always be those of privilege who have everything given to them, but they suffer from the deficiencies that causes. I don't have the right to eat unless I earn the money to pay for it. I do not have the right to medical service or any other service that someone else has to pay for. I should have the right and freedom to pursue those ends, but not be guaranteed the outcome at the expense of others.

( I do not begrudge safety nets to catch those in society who are truly helpless, but those are few and far between. Productivity breeds prosperity, nothing else, which benefits all in society. I laud the morality of those times when family's and friends responsibly supported those who could not do for themselves.)

I believe in a government that governs least governs best. We have been brought away from that by changing our Constitution, by "progressing" away from the ideals of freedom and individualism--all in the name of egalitarianism. In an effort to bring about moral socialism we empower the government to assume more and more power over our lives. By pushing social programs (which account for the largest part of our expenditures) we enslave ourselves to it. Last year, tax free day was into June, which meant that over half of what we earn in the United States goes to a hulking government who spends it on anything from artwork, to mahogany furniture, politician vacations to unneeded medical procedures and medications. Empowering a government one way gives it the inch it needs, with the eventual outcome of placing ourselves once again as vassals under a system the type of which we left. Progressing away from democracy leads ultimately to fascism, an unavoidable cycle. Liberals push the ball up the hill and over the peak, then sit back horrified at the resultant plunge. (This is why liberals often become conservatives later in life--or in the middle of a political cycle).

Consideration and deliberation. I believe in reviewing every initiative of government carefully regardless of how noble the venture sounds to determine its long-term outcome. Hair does not grow faster by being pulled and the fast fix which may seem like a good idea eventually leads to undoing. Social Security was needed at the time of its inception, but FDR and our government at the time did not have the foresight to change it or let it see its sunset. In so doing, it has created a burden to society, a dependency upon government, and an impoverished retirement community. (A simple study would be to just consider the amount of individual contributions to Social Security annuitized over a person's work history, and most people would retire millionaires--instead we have seniors having to depend on a pittance and Meals on Wheels.)

I think that if you look at our nation over the span of years you can see what I mean. A simple question to ask is, "are we more liberal today as a society than we were 50 years ago?" The answer is obviously yes, so one has to look at where it has led us. That is the reason I am a conservative, because I value our freedom and the opportunities it affords us. Why change a good thing?

In closing, I'll give one of my favorite Barry Goldwater quotes (BTW, although venerated at this time, he was demonized and vilified by liberals while alive and in government):

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Thursday, December 22, 2005

This One's For You, Jack

More tortured reasoning from the regressive right
This article addresses Jack Mercer's hypothetical "Would you..?" scenario.

Where have all the conservatives gone?

Just For Fun

Live Vote: Should Bush be impeached?

I know, unscientific, inaccurate. But hey, it's just for fun, right?

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Dick Cheney

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Yipee a Muslim state

Thank Allah we spent so much blood and money in the middle-east to form a sectarian state identical to Iran. How does the administration spin an overwhelming victory for pro-Islamic state Shiites in Iraq? Civil war and fragmentation of Iraq into 3 autonomous regions now seems the most probable outcome.

Sunday, December 18, 2005


When you have 10 minutes watch these videos. The next generation robot from Sony is really a leap forward. I wonder just where this technology will take us...

Bush is a hypocrite

Bush is taking aim at the New York Times following their decision to publish the NSA article, "saying a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11." Can anyone find a statement where Bush criticized Bob Novak for releasing Valerie Plame's name? Wasn't that also a threat to national security?

Saturday, December 17, 2005


I have a cracked rib and I'm taking percocet so please forgive me if my posts are a little random. I watched the President on NewsHour last night. Since he didn't deny that the NSA was given permission to spy on Americans it probably happened. Again the administration uses the "trust us" argument. That's not going to fly with most Americans. Civil liberties are important to citizens irrespective of their party affiliation. Trust is something that needs to be earned, the Senate's failure to extend the PATRIOT act is an indication that many Senators realize the administration doesn't deserve the trust of Americans.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Republican Spend-a-holics

Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years
President George W. Bush is now on his way to becoming the first full-term president since John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) to not veto a single bill. The result is a congress that has been completely unconstrained in satiating its appetite for pork and corporate welfare.

The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders
Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years... Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term... The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent... Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. Even if Congress passes Bush’s new budget exactly as proposed, not a single cabinet-level agency will be smaller than when Bush assumed office... The GOP establishment in Washington today has become a defender of big government.
Around the "internets" you'll find examples of right-wingers trying to disown Bush by defining him as a "liberal". As their proof they cite his presiding over unbridled spending and expansion of government, as if liberalism was defined by "spending". And we can only shake our heads.

Because you know what? They can make a my-pet-scapegoat out of George Bush, but they can't hide from the reality that we progressives have been waiting patiently to come to fruition for the last five years: The republicans have only themselves to blame.

Remember, this was their grand moment of glory. A republican-controlled congress, a republican president, a republican judiciary. They said they'd show us how it was supposed to be done. Responsible, prudent fiscal restraint. Honor and dignity in the white house. Etcetera ad nauseum.

They failed miserably on all counts. They all did. Not just Bush. All of them. They compose the bills that Bush always signs. They rob taxpayers to pay for their pork. They prostitute themselves to special interests at the citizens expense. They sell us out and collect their blood money. They bribe journalists to subvert the media. They commit all manner of apalling debauchery, and somehow manage to convince their supporters that they are morally superior. Through scandal after scandal, they enjoy unwavering allegiance. And as things get worse and worse, their response is to single out a member of the pack and say, "it's his fault... he's a liberal."

Well, that's as laughable as it is ludicrous. Bush is repubican, through and through. They are the party of scandal and hypocrisy. The party of irresponsible fiscal policy and ruinous economic indulgences. The party of disasterous policies both foreign and domestic. The party of such an appalling, disgraceful lack of concern for American citizens that it borders on contempt. The party that can hardly manage to issue a single statement that does not contain a lie.

What does "conservative" mean? Today, it means to conserve the Washington status quo in all its forms. All the greed, lying, bribery, cronyism, graft, corruption, crime and contempt for which Washington has become infamous.

They are the conservatives. They are the republicans.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

My turn to wish you all a Merry Christmas

I’m getting tired of Christian conservatives whining about how liberals are attacking their precious religion in a time where we need to be as inclusive as possible.

News flash, America has an image problem. Many foreigners believe that America is corporate theocracy hell bent on reenacting the Crusades. If you enjoyed 9/11 then keep it up. Keep reacting to any perceived "assault" on your way of life with narcissistic arrogance and see where we end up. For corporations, "Happy Holidays" is a step in the right direction. It’s a step towards the image we need to project to the rest of the world. You guys want everything without any sacrifice to your own way of life. Before reacting with "this is just more liberal bullshit", think about it. You guys "love" having these discussions because they represent an argument you will probably win, not because they represent any real affect to your well being. When companies capitulate is it really a win for Christian values?

Enough ranting, just to confirm that corporations aren't "actively [trying to] eliminate Christmas from the season" (Quote from Sean). I conducted a search of companies identified by Jerry Falwell’s campaign, for the terms "Christmas" and "Hannukah":

Kmart: 138 products containing the word Christmas, 111 containing the word Hanukkah
Sears: 540 products containing the word Christmas, 5 containing the word Hanukkah
Walmart: 7904 products containing the word Chirstmas, 203 containing the word Hanukkah

… and of course the worst offender on the top of Falwell’s hit list, Target, with a total of 39,151 products containing the word Christmas, 913 containing the word Hanukkah. Apparently the assault on Christmas is more like a slight nudge.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Why Do Christians Hate Capitalism?

This war on Christmas stuff is getting hilarious. All you have to do is Google war on Christmas and you’ll see for yourself. There are even groups calling for boycotts of stores who don’t specifically promote Christmas by name, to the exclusion of other seasonal holidays.

Let’s get this straight: these religious groups want to try to force businesses to advertise a bias towards their religion, rather than allow the stores to appeal to as broad a customer base as they can? Why can’t these groups just let businesses operate as they see fit?

In spite of what these poor delusional souls think, American communities are not all reflective of Norman Rockwell’s America. There are (surprise!) other cultures and other religions, in this country, and their money talks, too. And quite frankly, it’s a lot more cost effective to produce signage with one phrase like "Happy Holidays" than it is to produce separate signs for Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Solstice, and whatever. It’s just plain good business to try to appeal to as many customers as possible.

If there is a war over Christmas, it was the Christians who instigated it, and are zealously waging it. And their zealotry reveals blasphemous hypocrisy: Christmas, along with being a celebration of the birth of Christ, is traditionally about peace on earth and goodwill toward all. But these Christian groups seem to feel that Christmas is all about marketing and retail signage and appearances and shallow, superficial rhetoric. Instead of finding the significance in welcoming all people to join in their celebration by celebrating the holidays, they condemn such welcoming practices and conspire to punish retailers who they feel have darkened the altar of the cash register. They have turned a season of holiday cheer into yet another forum to engage in another one of their religious pit fights against popular culture. That’s sad. And I'll tell you what: In spite of their claims, no one is "forcing" them to not say the word "Christmas". That's ridiculous.

Why can’t these Christmas warrior Christians just keep their religion to themselves, worship however they want to, post whatever signs they want to in their own businesses, send out Christmas cards if they want to, enjoy their religious holiday, and get over the fact that not everyone shares their beliefs?

Bonus link: A totally excellent article on The Meaning of (the War Over) Christmas

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Not a "lucky country" for some

Saturday, December 10, 2005


I'm not a supporter of the death penalty. If ever there was a time not to protest the death penalty it is the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams. Other than starting one of the most violent street gangs that has been responsible for the murder of at least hundreds and possibly thousands, he executed 4 completely innocent people. I cringed when Michael Moore became the face of the DNC during the last election, when I saw Snoop Dog pleading for clemency for Tookie I had to shut the TV off. Snoop Dogg, charged with murder himself and a former member of the Crips, demanding the governor pardon his ex-boss? Give me a break. He can write a thousand books about changing his ways, if the death penalty is legal in California then let him die. Meanwhile Californians should find another, more deserving, death row inmate to protest for, William Clark for one...

Thursday, December 08, 2005

The Day After Yesterday

"There is absolutely no excuse for any more delay in action," Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin told the meeting, urging the United States and other skeptical nations to "listen to the conscience of the world."

Why would the Bush administration give two shits about the "conscience of the world?" They've made it clear they will do whatever they want, whenever they want, regardless of its impact on the rest of the world. In the same fashion we flipped the bird to nations attempting to find peace and security through diplomacy first, we are arrogantly telling the world to do as we say and not as we do with regard to raping the environment. Anyone who believes in leading by example should be appalled by our government. Anyone who thinks we shouldn't finance short term gains at the detriment of our grandchildren's livelihoods (or perhaps even lives) should be sickened.

Shockingly, some people are tossing stones at the fascist dictator of the economic world (us). Arctic natives have officially asserted that climate change is tantamount to human rights abuse. They're right.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

For my conservative friends

Spc. Sabrina Harman poses over the dead body of Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi prisoner. There is a small patch of blood on his right temple and his eyes are sealed closed with tape. According to Spc. Kenner's testimony, Navy SEALs brought al-Jamadi to the prison in good health.

Now let's play "pick the definition". Would you consider the above photo the result of:
a) Hazing. Definition: To initiate, as into a college fraternity, by exacting humiliating performances from or playing rough practical jokes upon.
b) Torture, Definition: Something causing severe pain or anguish and possibly death.

I pick "b". Again it is never OK to do this, ever. If you are a Christian Conservative and you think torture is OK, ask yourself what Jesus would say. Do you think he would accept torture under any circumstances? I'm guessing probably not, especially after the Crucifixion.

One more thing, the "we aren't as bad as Saddam" argument is bullshit. Torture is torture, whatever the result. This is what Americans allowed to be photographed, I don't want to guess what we aren't seeing. What's most annoying is that so long after Abu Ghraib the US government still condones torture and goes to great length to make sure they can covertly torture suspects on foreign soil.

Monday, December 05, 2005

A presumption of guilt

My main concern with covert CIA prisons in Europe isn't that we are contravening European law, the Geneva convention and bunch of national statutes. It's that we are presuming the people we are sending off to these prisons are guilty and for some reason should not be granted the due process we afford our own citizens.

Does the administration really think the "these prisons saved European lives" argument is going to resonate with the average European? After all they aren't so gullible over there and have even less faith in our government than we do. It will be interesting to watch the European press devour Condoleezza over the next few days. I hope they don't let her get away without revealing some details.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

More stupidity from the TSA

The federal government is allowing scissors and screwdrivers back on planes. There is no reason why a passenger would need to carry-on a screwdriver; other than securing a loose table tray, removing an arm rest or tightening the wiring around a bomb. Scissors, same thing. If people really want to keep in-flight magazine articles they can rip them out.

A few years back a group of Saudi guys worked out how to kill 3,000 people by slitting throats with box cutters. Although I agree tweezers and nail clippers pose no threat, there are items that should be banned from the cabin of a plane.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

"George Bush, Meet Reality"

President's speech on Iraq strategy conjures a dreamworld
"America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander-in-chief," says Bush, the man who squirmed his way out of Vietnam duty.

All of this seems removed from reality, in which the U.S. can’t guarantee security and its allies in the Iraqi military are commonly viewed as U.S. puppets sent out to conduct torture. The Iraqis want the U.S. out.

Most of all, Bush himself and his strategy statement omit oil, a major reason--if not the only reason--for invading Iraq to begin with. And here the U.S. is on the verge of executing a total takeover of the once nationalized industry, turning it instead into a privatized business to be run by the big international companies--descendants of the original oil companies that colonized Iraq to begin with.
Iraqis want the U.S. out.

(bonus link)

Some hypothetical country

Let's say there's this landlocked country in Africa that has an evil dictator torturing and murdering anyone suspected of supporting the opposition party. The dictator has now decided to obtain nuclear material and has intimate ties to North Korea and Iran (2 out of 3 in the axis of evil). For the sake of this post lets call this country Ziwali.

Every knows the leader of Ziwali is corrupt, he sanctions rape camps and brainwashes his country's youth. The foreign media has reported the plight of the citizens of Ziwali but the country has been largely ignored by international bodies like the United Nations.

The United States now claims the reason for their attack on Iraq was to bring freedom to the Iraqi people from tyranny, the same tyranny the people of Ziwail must face each day. Why doesn't the United States liberate the people of Ziwal?