No Mullah Left Behind

Thomas Freidman points out that by refusing to embrace the goal of energy independence for America we are actually funding both sides in the war on terror, since our dependence on foreign oil props up places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan (who then use that cash to try and kill us).

Enriching our enemies

I have on several occasions called on Democrats to get serious about energy independence as a way to focus domestic and foreign policy and I do so again.
We must break the grip of oil-rich nations on our domestic affairs, and at the same time we can take global warming seriously.

Piles of bodies

A suicide bomber has just killed over 100 people in Iraq at a crowded market. Are we ever going to get enough soldiers into Iraq to secure it, or enough sense to get out? This has been going on for years now and our strategy has been a failure of leadership.

How many people have to die because Donald Rumsfeld can't admit it was a bad idea to send so few troops for peace keeping?


Killa in Hilla

Is Seeing Believing?

I saw a UFO once, that is, something I couldn't identify in the sky. I looked up and saw a strange light directly overhead moving somewhat erratically, and travelling at what must have been incredible speeds (given the short time with which it crossed the sky). Undramatically I have no stories of probings or even a fleeting interest in my person by any alien race to report. But I did see something unusual that I hadn't seen before, something unexplained and flying.

Peter Jennings has emboldened me to share my story by doing a special report on UFOs which asks, "Are we alone?".

The UFO Phenomenon -- Seeing Is Believing

I chalked my own experience up to some military spy plane (see SR-71), or a meteor skipping across the atmosphere like a rock on a pond. Call me a doubting Thomas with my thumb out, but I find it hard to believe that alien tourists are driving around the atmosphere without stopping in for a delicious milk shake and some french fries.

Now I find myself wondering if Peter Jennings will next investigate Bigfoot, Elvis, Crop Circles, and the Loch Ness Monster. I suppose that seems more likely to me than insightful reporting on the War on Terrorism.

In Peter's defense, though, there was that mysterious incident in Pheonix in 1997

Rhetoric vs Reality

The Rhetoric
------------

While visiting Vladimir Putin of Russia in Slovakia on Thursday, Feb. 24th, President Bush lectured a visibly irritated Mr. Putin about the universal principals of Democracy. Getting lectured about Democracy from President Bush is a lot like being lectured on chastity from a prostitute, or civility from Bill O'Reilly, so it isn't surprising that Putin wasn't pleased with these words:

"Democracies have certain things in common; they have a rule of law, and protection of minorities, a free press, and a viable political opposition"

As far as the words themselves go, I'd love to see President Bush worthy of uttering them.


The Reality
-----------

While it is about time someone mentioned to Mr. Putin that his heavy handed ways don't foster liberty, even conservative Republicans have compared American conservatives to "brownshirts".

Read this article in "The American Conservative" if you think I'm joking:

Hunger for Dictatorship

Liberation is coming

Here is a flash animation worthy of review.

Is liberation headed Iran's way soon?

Watch it Friday

No Canada

Oh Canada decided not to join the missile defense system. Perhaps they decided it was a gigantic waste of money, or maybe the cold weather up there generates cold feet. Or, maybe Canada figures, "Who would want to bomb us, aye?".

Count Canada out

I wish we'd put that project on hold until we could get it to work, but once again the prophets of profit prey on the public purse, just as Eisenhower warned in 1961.

Would a missile defense system have foiled 911?

Would a missile defense system guard against a suitcase nuclear weapon?

Would a missile defense system guard us from poison bombs?

Shouldn't these new realities become our new priorities?

Sometimes I wonder if the Bush administration is paying attention or is capable of forming any original ideas. Every day Osama is free ought to be another day ended in frustration, yet when was the last time you even heard anybody mention Osama? Remember him? He killed over 3000 Americans.

Weren't we gonna "Smoke him out"?

A Letter From the Future

What does the future have in store for us?

Here is a letter from the future which fills in the details:

Museletter # 110

You gotta love the Internets.

Leading the blind into a pit

The Pope has just announced that gay marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil".

Gay marriage is 'evil'

I am not an infallible mouthpiece of God, but I'd say that the Inquisition and child molestors in priestly vestments have done more damage to society than gay marriage. Perhaps His Holiness considers the teachings which led to those events the "old ideology of evil"?

Should a representative of Christ promote intolerance?

Isn't it abusive to control another's behavior when it does you no harm?

Does God Almighty need help with smiting and judgement?

If God created gay people isn't it blasphemous NOT to love them?

Here is some food for thought. This is the most famous passage in the New Testament regarding the judgement of others.

The Sermon on the Plain
Luke 6.32-38


If you love those who love you,
what credit is that to you?
For even sinners love those who love them.

If you do good to those who do good to you,
what credit is that to you?
For even sinners do the same.

If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive,
what credit is that to you?
Even sinners lend to sinners,
to receive as much again.

But love your enemies,
do good,
and lend,
expecting nothing in return.

Your reward will be great,
and you will be children of the Most High;
for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

Be merciful,
just as your Father is merciful.

Do not judge,
and you will not be judged;
do not condemn,
and you will not be condemned.

Forgive,
and you will be forgiven;
give,
and it will be given to you.

A good measure,
pressed down,
shaken together,
running over,
will be put into your lap;
for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.

If you're interested the "speck in the eye" passage which President Bush likes to quote (see here) is also in Luke at 6.42. That passage also warns againts judging your neighbors.

I don't see how anyone can be familiar with the words of Christ, profess to love Him, and yet cast stones of judgement at others. Furthermore, I don't think the words of Christ should be used to embolden the self-righteous to violence against their neighbors, which seems inevitable with this kind of hate-speech.


The sun shines on the wicked.
The sun shines on the good.
The sun shines on the sapling.
The sun shines on the wood.

When will our lives reflect the sun?
When will our hearts embrace the One?
When will we live the way we need?
When will we love in word and deed?

Not yet.
Not now.
Not soon.

U.M.

April Showers, May flowers, and June war?

In this article Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM inspector and one of the earliest to denounce the Iraq war on the basis of WMDs, has made two major charges:

Charge 1: President Bush has "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005.
Charge 2: The U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.

Full details

In this story President Bush says, "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous", but also "Having said that, all options are on the table":

Simply ridiculous

Will knowing that something is a ridiculous idea prevent this President from trying it anyway?

Is the June plan simply a contingency plan?

Shouldn't we succeed in Iraq before we go around toppling any other tyrants?

The truthfulness scorecard currently favors Scott Ritter and that makes me nervous. I sure hope I am overestimating the President's penchant for violence, or else misunderestimating his penchant for diplomacy.

This President inhaled

There is now evidence that President Bush smoked Mary-Jane, but evades drug questions to this day for children's sake. In other words, he feels that being truthful sets a bad example.

Like Chong

Should George Washington have evaded questions about a certain cherry tree?

I used to play a game as a child called "Rock, Paper, Scissors". Perhaps you know it? Perhaps President Bush should play "Shame, Lies, Truth", whose meanings apply respectively, but it is much more instructive.

My sympathy for President Bush because "a man he thought was his friend taped him", is equal to that expressed by Republicans for Monica Lewinsky.

I think the more damaging revelations in this article have to deal with the President's political calculus regarding the courting of the religious right (our own dear theocracy). It is clear to me President Bush views them as tools and I wonder if they will come to the same conclusion. If so the blowback could be more fun to watch than a Paris Hilton home video.

All around the mulberry bush

In this story from February 19, 2005 President Bush says that he has "No plans to attack Iran." The article goes on to mention that the President does not intend to attack Iran and expresses hope that European diplomacy will serve to persuade Iran to do what we say.

In this story from Friday, May 24, 2002 President Bush says that he has "No plans to attack Iraq." The article goes on to mention that the President does not intend to attack Iraq and expresses hope that European diplomacy will serve to persuade Iraq to do what we say.

Why isn't Bob Novak going to jail?

Here is an article that asks the question, "Why isn't Bob Novak going to jail?"

Remembering Valerie

I would say it is because objective truth is not partisan, yet our press treats it as such.

I would also say that our reporters have no fire in their bellies to allow Helen Thomas to be marginalized by a stooge like Mr. Guckert on their watches.

If everyone fails to notice the elephant in the room how is a parrot to be seen?

What's theodicy?

Barbara Ehrenreich wrote the book Nickled and Dimed, which I enjoyed quite a bit. She wondered what it would be like to try and survive on minimum wage jobs and worked as a cleaning lady and applied at Walmart (among other things), and wrote about her experiences. Her book made me realize how something like a car breaking down can mean the difference between sinking or swimming.

Recently Barbara wrote an article called "God Owes Us an Apology" in rebuttal to those who claim to know "His Will" regarding the catastrophic tsunami. It is well done and, since it is Sunday, it seems appropriate to draw your attention to it:

God Owes Us an Apology

Hot military stud

Everybody knows I'm no fan of the President and you'd think I'd be as glad as a mosquito in a nudist colony reading the details of this story:

face2face

Instead I am mostly confused.

How does a gay male prostitute get press credentials (described by some as a hard pass) and an interview with the President?

Was James involved in blowing Valerie Plame's cover?

Will the press finally take assaults on their credibility seriously enough to defend it?

Will the Bible-thumping, gay-bashing, Bush-voting, moralists be as quick to pass judgment on one of their own as upon Sponge Bob Square Pants?

How free are we when the press isn't free?

Truth, Ethics, Country

Suppose I said, "I hate black cars" and Brit Hume reported that "I hate blacks". Would that be honest journalism?

Suppose Brit Hume reported this:

Brit's reality

And FDR actually said this:

FDR in 1935

Is that honest journalism?

Is that "Fair and Balanced"?

The 6 commandments

When you whittle away the false pretenses for invading Iraq you are left with conquest of oil as one of the few remaining plausible explanations, and we need to begin to admit that we are sending our children to die because we don't have the willpower to curb our dependence on oil. In fact, we would rather 2-3 soldiers die every day, and use torture, than use compact fluorescent lighting and rebuild our energy distribution system. We prefer to abandon 4 of the 10 commandments (Do not steal. Do not kill. Do not bear false witness. Do not covet your neighbor's possessions) to changing our way of life. We would rather delude ourselves with flag waving and barricades of denial than admit we have an addiction that is harming those around us.

In fact, think about an addict for a moment...

Doesn't an addict spend too much money securing his addiction?
Don't we?
Doesn't an addict refuse the counsel of close friends?
Don't we?
Won't an addict steal to satisfy his addiction?
Don't we?
Won't an addict lie to satisfy his addiction?
Don't we?
Isn't an addict someone that will take great risks to secure his desire?
Don't we?
Doesn't an addict consume more and more for the same high?
Don't we?
Won't an addict conduct business with anyone?
Don't we?

How much will we be willing to give up to maintain a lifestyle that will ultimately destroy all life?

How far will an addict go?

Outsourcing torture

The New Yorker has managed to distinguish itself over the past 5 years as one of the most important homes for investigative journalists. Thanks to them we know about Abu Gharaib and now we learn of a program known as "extraordinary rendition".

Extraordinary rendition would more properly be called outsourcing torture and thus explains the title of the article:

Outsourcing Torture

I am ashamed of my government for adopting the playbook of our "evil" enemies. This policy is not only morally bankrupt, but it is also ineffective on two different points:

1. When you torture someone they will tell you whatever it is they think you wish to hear, not necessarily "the truth".

2. Coersion is inadmissable in a US court of law and therefore we will never be able to prosecute the people we torture, which means Guantanamo will become an elderly hostile for terrorist suspects.

Our Constitution requires courage and we must reclaim our Constitutional pride before our enemies become indistinguishable from ourselves.

Barricade the asylum doors

I often wonder if I were locked away in a padded, white room if the interior of the asylum would be able to compete with the outside world for madness. I find myself wondering this again as I notice:

1. Missile fire was reported from unidentified aircraft over E. Iranian town of Dailam 300km from Afghan border Wednesday afternoon. (Source: Debkafile, and this corroborating BBC story)

2. Iran and Syria have decided to form a common front. (Source: BBC News)

3. Russia appears to have decided to sell Syria surface-to-air missiles after-all. (Source: Haaretz)

4. Lebanon may be destabilizing, with possibly Syria or Israel behind it. (Source: Asia Times)

If you were insane it might not be such a bad idea to barricade the doors against the outside world.

Priorities

The world we could have:

General Motors did a study and estimated that it would take 10-15 billion dollars to equip America with 11,700 new hydrogen fueling stations, or enough so a driver would always be within two miles of a hydrogen station in a major urban area and so there would be a station every 25 miles along main highways.

Source: Scientific American March 2005

The world we do have:

On Valentines day President Bush asked Congress for $80 billion more dollars to make war, not love, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Source: Alms for the war

Bankruptcy study

A recent study on bankruptcy came to some surprising conclusions:

1. Half the bankruptcies are caused by medical bills.

2. 76% of the people who had medically-related bankruptcy HAD health insurance.

Harvard bankruptcy study

When are we going to have enough compassion to provide health care for all Americans? If Canada can do it why can't we? If their system is so bad, why are they exporting drugs and flu shots to us?

What child is this?

On a mountain of praise and glory
Forms an avalanche of pride
That sweeps Felicity from us
on a patriotic slide.

A bullet sings and stops silent.
A child appears and screams.
A flag flaps and flutters
In service to whose dreams?

What God is this who speaks of love,
yet demands such sacrifice?
What God is this who's on our side,
And tolerates such vice?

If my love is weighed in child's blood,
If my hatred heave and boil,
Then I do not follow God
and prefer to be dust and soil.

U.M.

Inauguration Day

Oasis

Naomi Klein is interviewed by Lakshmi Chaudhry in this article called "What are we fighting for?"

I always wonder how people younger than I am can be so much smarter than I am, but I find a good whoopie pie sees me through any feelings of inadequacy.

Here is a paragraph I find illuminating:

"...the success of Karl Rove's party is really a success in branding. Identity branding is something that the corporate world has understood for some time now. They're not selling a product; they're selling a desired identity, an aspirational identity of the people who consume their product."

The good news is that I think John Kerry, in losing, came to realize that much of what Naomi said is true. Furthermore, I think you'll see him start to call Republican's on their noble rhetoric and to allow himself to be led in order that he may lead. He must learn to trust that voice inside again.

The emperor's clothes

We all know the story of the emperor that had no clothes, and how everyone surrounding the emperor failed to let him know that he was naked. It took a child, one day, to point out the obvious and shatter the myth that arrogance and pomp had constructed.

While President Bush is not an emperor, and while he does remain fully clothed in public, Iraq makes a fine metaphor for invisible thread. While the President boasts of spreading Democracy in Iraq behind the blinding glare of arrogance and pomp, the naked truth exposes an embarrassing reality.

Bombings continue

Spearing the Beast

Republican intellectuals view the Social Security system as a "great beast" that must be destroyed, and they are using a two-pronged attack to destroy it. The first prong is to shock and awe the treasury with crippling tax-cuts (that primarily benefit the rich), and the second is to use the predictable financial "crisis" to cut the hell out of FDR's legacy.

When these same types of compassionless avarice-masturbators last ran America our banks failed, poverty was epidemic, investors were jumping out of windows, and hope was untrustworthy. If FDR hadn't come along and freed the self-destructive servants of money from their own desires where would America be today? Would it have become the land of opportunity?

Doesn't "ownership society" imply that America is for sale?
Who will be the "owners" and who will be the "owned"?

Paul Krugman has lain out the ends and means of the Republicans in this article. He is much more rational than I am (especially today) and qualified for more than ranting (especially today):

Spearing the Beast

Universal deceit

In a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.

— George Orwell

Ward Churchill

Sgt. Kevin Benderman

How am I?

Here is an exercise to help you appreciate how unique we are.

You have two parents.
Your 2 parents each have two parents.
Your 4 grandparents each have two parents.

This can be expressed mathematically like so:

Ancestors = 2 ^ G, read 2 to the power of G where G = generations

So, one generation is represented by 2 ^ 1, or 2
and two generations is represented by 2 ^ 2, or 4

Now, suppose we assume that 100 years approximates 3 generations and look in our ancestral rear-view mirror to see how many people it took to make me.

I remember singing "Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492" in grade-school. 1492 was 513 years ago, or approximately 15 generations (3 for every 100). Using the above ancestral formula, this means there were 32,768 people involved in my appearance (yours too).

Let's make a quick table with time-span on the left and ancestors on the right:

500 years ago I had 32,768 ancestors (G = 15)
1000 years ago I had 1,073,741,824 ancestors (G = 30)
1500 years ago I had 35,184,372,088,832 ancestors (G = 45)
2000 years ago I had 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 ancestors (G = 60)

I quickly exhausted the planet's population supply, yet my math appears to be irrefutable. Did I just prove that I can't possibly exist?

Is this an exercise in bad science or bad intentions?

Comments?

Our Godless Constitution

There are those that would enjoy planting their crosses through our science books and their poison pills of piety in our politician's proclamations, but they would be hard-pressed to gain ground with the founding fathers of this nation:

Life, Liberty, Happiness

If Thomas Jefferson were alive today he'd be the most hated man in America. Of course, he'd have his fans here, but generally speaking he'd be more of a pariah than Michael Moore.

Solomon says

I thought I might read the Bible since so many politicians these days wield it like an implement of division. I have a copy of the Oxford Annotated Bible and opened it up to read from the Wisdom of Solomon, a section of which deals mostly with fear. His warnings can be made relevant today with a little imagination:

"For when lawless people (see "Geneva Conventions", "Rendered quaint") supposed that they held the holy nation in their power, they themselves lay as captives of darkness and prisoners of long night, shut in under their roofs, exiles from eternal providence.

For, thinking that in their secret sins they were unobserved behind a dark curtain of forgetfulness, they were scattered, terribly alarmed, and appalled by specters.

For, not even the inner chamber (see "Undisclosed location") that held them protected them from fear, but terrifying sounds rang out around them (see "No blood for oil!"), and dismal phantoms with gloomy faces appeared (see John Kerry).

And, no power of fire was able to give light, nor did the brilliant flames of the stars avail to illumine that hateful night. Nothing was shining through to them except a dreadful, self-kindled fire, and in terror they deemed the things that they saw to be worse than that unseen appearance."

Wisdom of Solomon, 17.1-17.11

And, interestingly, here is Solomon's (see 17.12) definition of fear:

"Fear is nothing but a giving up of the helps that come from reason, and hope, defeated by this inward weakness, PREFERS ignorance (see Bush, reelection) of what causes the torment. But throughout the night, which was really powerless and which came upon them from the recesses of powerless Hades, they all slept the same sleep, and now were driven in monstrous specters, and now were paralyzed by their souls' surrender; for sudden and unexpected fear overwhelmed them (Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Osama, market crashes, gay people, WMDs, mad cow, mad goat, Avian flu, drugs, and on and on and on....).

And, whoever was there fell down, and thus was kept shut up in a prison not made of iron; for whether they were farmers or shepherds or workers who toiled in the wilderness, they were seized, and endured the inescapable fate (death?); for with one chain of darkness they all were bound.

It sounds to me like Solomon didn't have much respect for the types of men that chased after imaginary threats.

On Social Security

An issue like Social Security tinkering is complicated only in the sense that you can't get a real plan or a straight answer from the Bush administration. Nobody is discussing a "plan" they are discussing a "goal", or as I call it "an end".

The President's policy (such as it can be pieced together) will look something like a Las Vegas roulette wheel, except that the gambler is Congress and the money is your grandmother's rent check. Worse, Congress will take out a loan in your grandmother's name (details...) and continue to do so as they spin, and spin, and spin. I find that Congress does bad enough when entrusted with your hard-earned money without sending them to the slots with loan guarantees at grandma's expense.

The Social Security "crisis" is a "sky-is-falling" crisis of leadership that simple math (addition and subtraction) can cure. For instance, Social Security can be made solvent for the foreseeable future by repealing a third of the tax cuts enacted by President Bush.

Perhaps Democrats ought to publicly state they'll sign 2/3 of the tax cuts into permanence if 1/3 will go to the Social Security trust fund until Republicans feel it is solvent enough to make the remaining 1/3 permanent? If they did, half the beer bottles in America would have their caps twisted off by the force of the about face on the nature of the crisis.

The future of taxes?

The Center for American Progress has published what it calls "A fair and simple tax system for our future". You can view the details of the plan here:

Tax CAP

James Carville likes to say that one should never just oppose, but should always propose.

I like the idea of getting corporations to pay their fair share, since they receive many benefits of citizenship. I also like the tax code simplifications. They even have a handy calculator for you to calculate your tax savings under the plan. It also lets you find out the affects on different income levels.

If you put in, say, Pedro Martinez's yearly income you will have a sense of the likely detractors of the plan.

Click picture to see how 

Life culture

Today I thought I'd share why I believe the freedom of choice ought to extend to the decision to have, or not have, an abortion. My aim is only to explain myself, not to confront.

I believe that a body isn't alive, that is to say inhabited by a conscience, until it receives the breath of life. This view can be supported in Genesis, where Adam is but clay and dust until he is breathed into, but to me the Bible is a book of parables, so I point that out as a touchstone for the religious.

Since I believe that a fetus isn't alive, I don't consider an abortion a murder. That is also why I feel a fetus ought to be of secondary concern to the life of the mother (who is alive). Since I know that this viewpoint horrifies many people I feel abortions should be minimized via sex education and contraception whenever possible, and also through the reduction of poverty (which is dramatically linked to the number of abortions).

Abortion is a deeply personal decision, and often a deeply religious decision as well, so I feel each individual needs the freedom of choice to make a moral decision which is right for themselves.

I feel that people opposed to choice on moral grounds have a right to be angry that their tax dollars might support abortion activities, in the same way that a Quaker might feel their taxes support the military, and in the same way atheists feel that their taxes now support religion. Perhaps someday there will be economic democracy as well as political democracy and the people will control the flow of money based on their own interests and values? Until that day, though, I think that everyone who looks will find the US government doing things they disagree with (in my case my tax dollars fund Capital Punishment, the War against drugs, the war in Iraq, and anti-smoking ads).

But, the older I get the more committed I am to the ideal of freedom of choice, since that strikes me as the fairest balance that can be struck and lays the responsibility for one's soul with one's actions.

I think that more can be done to limit abortion when progress is made in areas of agreement, and those should be areas of objective truth. Reducing poverty does reduce the number of abortions. Effective contraception does reduce the number of abortions. Reforming the adoption process will give women a brighter hope than abandonment to an ineffective institution (most people adopt abroad).

All this fighting is more of an appeaser of conscience than a force of positive change.

As the White House Turns

Here is a great political cartoon called "The March of Fredom":

Turning points


Here is another one from my favorite contemporary political cartoonist, Clay Bennett:

Smoke him out


And here is a good index of daily cartoons. It is a place where you can laugh at yourself as well as your opposition and that's a good, healthy thing for Americans:

Slate cartoon index

A call for justice

In this article Nicholas D. Kristof argues that President Bush was right to confront Sudanese officials for their crimes against humanity and I agree. Now he calls on the President to set aside his hatred of the World Criminal Court in order that those responsible for Darfur's genocide can be brought to justice before it, and I agree.

Why Should We Shield the Killers?

The thorny issue for Mr. Bush is that he could legitimize a court that might wish to prosecute him for Abu Gharaib, or Guantanamo, or destroying Fallujah, or invading Iraq. What a tangled web has been woven.

What's a poor abuser of the public trust to do?

What Democrats need

Here is how Roosevelt talked about right-wing nuts:

They seek the restoration of their selfish power. They offer to lead us back round the same old corner into the same old dreary street.

Yes, there are still determined groups that are intent upon that very thing. Rigorously held up to popular examination, their true character presents itself. They steal the livery of great national constitutional ideals to serve discredited special interests. As guardians and trustees for great groups of individual stockholders they wrongfully seek to carry the property and the interests entrusted to them into the arena of partisan politics. They seek - this minority in business and industry - to control and often do control and use for their own purposes legitimate and highly honored business associations; they engage in vast propaganda to spread fear and discord among the people - they would gang up against the people's liberties…

Our resplendent economic autocracy does not want to return to that individualism of which they prate, even though the advantages under that system went to the ruthless and the strong. They realize that in thirty-four months we have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people's Government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people. Give them their way and they will take the course of every autocracy of the past - power for themselves, enslavement for the public.

Their weapon is the weapon of fear. I have said, The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. That is as true today as it was in 1933. But such fear as they instill today is not a natural fear, a normal fear; it is a synthetic, manufactured, poisonous fear that is being spread subtly, expensively and cleverly by the same people who cried in those other days, Save us, save us, lest we perish.


Franklin Roosevelt
January 3, 1936

Obviously the American people can't stay awake for that type of prose today, but with less wit and more arm waving Democrats might deliver the same message.

Our dream, the American dream, must not degrade from the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness to one of ownership. A society based on "ownership" is a society that "seeks it's kingdom on earth".