Saying Goodbye Because I'm Going to Be Kicked Off Blogger

You say Goodbye and I say Hello ~ Paul McCartney (dob 6/18/1942) of The Beatles (1960 to 1970) "Hello, Goodbye" is a song by the Beatles. The song was released as a single on 11/24/1967, and topped the charts in the United States, the United Kingdom. Though the songwriting credit is Lennon–McCartney, it was written solely by Paul McCartney.

I just learned that my blogger account is about to be blocked. Seeing as that will result in this blog being shuttered, I'd like to take the opportunity to say goodbye to my followers. If any of them still read my blog, that is. Apparently I broke Blogger's rules, and for that I will be banished. The individual who reported my infraction explains...

dmarks: The troll [w-dervish] doesn't deserve the light of day anywhere after his many penis-lengthening spams on my blog. ... I forwarded all his comments to Google as spam, which often results in them classifying an account as spam and blocking it. (2/24/2013 AT 11:55am via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

While it is true that I submitted some links to dmarks' blog of the sort he refers to (For approval. He had comment moderation on and they were never published), the reason I did so was not because I was "spamming" him.

This started awhile ago when dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) demonstrated that he was incapable of debating honestly. Instead of letting his "facts" speak for themselves, Mr. Marks felt the need to engage in vicious ad hominem. Dennis has accused me of "[lying] about child abuse and anti-Semitism", claiming that I defended individuals guilty of these crimes. But neither of these things happened.

Dennis even went so far as to insist that I "defend and support Scott Ritter's sex crimes against children". I brought up Scott Ritter during a discussion of Iraq's WMD program. Scott Ritter, along with numerous other IAEA inspectors looked for, and found no WMD. They reported this BEFORE bush decided to invade Iraq in order to "disarm" Saddam.

The reason for these vile accusations from Mr. Marks? Scott Ritter was caught in "police stings in which officers posed as under-aged girls to arrange meetings of a sexual nature" (two separate incidents). These incidents, however, occurred many years after Scott Ritter left the IAEA. The charges Mr. Ritter was convicted of have absolutely nothing to do with the WMD Scott Ritter did not find in Iraq. The truth is that other members of the IAEA, including David Kay, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, all said Iraq was disarmed and that the bush administrations claim that Iraq had WMD was a "deliberate deception".

But, of course these facts do not matter to Dennis. This is what he does. If you ever quote anyone with anything questionable in their history - he will "discredit" anything you say after that by bringing up the individual-in-question's misdeeds (real or imagined) over and over. Whatever other proof you may present to back up your argument DOES NOT MATTER.

Another example of this is a time when I quoted Francis Boyle in a discussion of bush's war crimes. According to Dennis, Francis Boyle is an "anti-Semite" (TADM #4). Because, in addition to believing George W. bush is a war criminal, Boyle has voiced disagreement with Israel's policies regarding Palestine. Frankly, I think that Mr. Boyle's views on this matter go a little too far, and I don't agree with them. But I do happen to agree with him about bush being guilty of war crimes. And, as before, I do not base my case for bush being a war criminal solely on anything Mr. Boyle said or did (I quoted other people and introduced other facts).

Regardless, Dennis (again) concluded that he had decimated my argument (by digging up "dirt" on an individual I quoted) and that, because I had quoted the "anti-Semite" Francis Boyle, that I must be an anti-semite too.

But, that isn't the end of it. After Dennis accused me of "defending and supporting... sex crimes against children", he accused me of doing the same in regards to spousal abuse (in a discussion concerning baseless charges of wife-beating against MSNBC host Ed Schultz). And, when another commentator who calls himself Rusty commented that - if I were to discover that Jerry Sandusky was a Liberal Democrat - I'd defend him as well. Rusty concluded, "based on WD's adamant acceptence of deviant behavior, one would only deduce he himself may actively engage in somewhat like behavior".

Dennis agreed with Rusty's comments, adding that he believes I am an "apologist and supporter of domestic violence" (SWTD #232).

Ever since he slung these ridiculous and ugly ad hominem lies I've had an extremely low opinion of this fellow. None the less, I continued to engage him. If this jackass had been someone I encountered in real life - I'd have gone out of my way to steer clear of him. But words on a blog from an individual I'll never meet don't really concern me. Also, it's more than a little funny how insane much of what he says is.

Anyway, back to the story of what Dennis is now calling my "penis spams"... the incident was triggered when he posted an article to his blog titled, "Detroit: A case against gun control", I responded by calling him a "gun nut". I based my comment on the fact that he brought up the much referred to (on the Right) fictitious scenario in which numerous criminals break into the home of a single woman. But the fact is that these Republicans can't cite an actual case in which a single woman needed a large capacity clip to ward off a home invasion. Because it's never happened.

Dennis deleted my comment and claimed I was "spamming" him. I responded to Dennis' "spam" claim by pointing out that, while my comment was disagreeable, it was not spam. It wasn't as if I posted a link to a male enhancement website, I wrote. But none of those comments remain. Dennis deleted both mine and his comments and replaced them with a comment that said, "Spams and trolls and other low-content comments will be deleted".

Of course, being his blog, Dennis can delete any comment he pleases, but what I wrote wasn't a spam. Perhaps my remarks could be categorized as a "troll" or "low-content", but it wasn't spam. Figuring Dennis was completely unfamiliar with what spam actually looked like, I decided to provide him with a couple of examples. At the time he had comment moderation enabled, so I knew only he would see this "spam", and he would delete it and not publish it. I wouldn't have submitted it otherwise, as it would only make me look bad to others who knew nothing about our "feud".

My comments included links and info regarding male enhancement and was intended as a JOKE and in response to him falsely accusing me of spamming him. I thought it was pretty funny, and given how torqued off it appears it made Dennis, I still think it is.

I also think it's pretty funny how confident Dennis appears to be that his "reporting" my comments will result in Google classifying my account as spam and blocking it. I looked into it and it appears to me that Google's policy it not to involve itself in such matters. If they determine your site is what they call a spam blog, they will disable it. But my writings most definitely do not fit the bill. This is not a "spam blog".

However, in the unlikely event of my blog's demise, I'll take the opportunity now to say goodbye. It was a mediocre to pathetic run while it lasted (given most of my posts receive zero comments). And screw you, Dennis. I was only attempting to be helpful (in educating you as to what actual spam looks like).

See Also: Perverted Phallophile's Homoerotic Homoerotica Featuring Noam Chomsky Nude, DSD #12.

SWTD #124, dDel #2.

A Disgusting Attack On Children And Adults Living In Poverty From A Sick Conservative Mind

The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him... They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market... It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live... It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him... what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune... These men... [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free? ~ Simon Linguet (7/14/1736 to 6/27/1794) French journalist and advocate, 1763.

I have, in comments on a Conservative blog referred to workers toiling for low amounts of money as "wage slaves. In response, a sick individual who calls himself dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) responded with the following...

Dennis Marks: "Wave slave" is one of those phrases made up by people completely ignorant of economics that does two bad things... 1) it levels a nasty insult at working people. 2) It trivializes real slavery, by implying that experience of real slaves isn't any worse than that of some kid from a well-fed family working at Starbucks whose only worry that he might not be able to afford trading in his iPhone 4S for an iPhone 5. (2/21/2013 AT 4:14pm).

This is really sick, disgusting stuff. It trivializes poverty. Wage slavery is real. Wikipedia describes it as "a situation perceived as quasi-voluntary slavery, where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate".

For individuals living in poverty, a low-paying job CAN accurately be described as "wage slavery", as the dependence on their wages are total and immediate. But notice that Mr. Marks denies the fact that poverty even exists, claiming that the troubles of a person earning a low salary have to do with them needlessly and foolishly upgrading their iPhone!

This is what Conservatives usually do when confronted with the ugly realities their self-centered greedy worldview (when put into practice by Republican legislators) creates. First they deny that poverty exists, by talking about the "poor" having things like microwaves and refrigerators (to start. Then they go to another level by claiming that poor people are buying widescreen TVs and iPhones).

This is what is known as blaming the victim. If the victim is responsible for their own predicament (those making low wages made - and continue to make - poor life choices), then the greedy Conservative is absolved of any responsibility or uncomfortable guilty feelings. There is no need for any compassion what-so-ever.

However, An article on the National Center for Law and Economic Justice website (a national non-profit organization dedicated to "advancing the cause of economic justice for low-income families, individuals, and communities across the country") reports, that "Census figures released in September 2012 reveal record-high numbers of people continue to live in poverty in the United States".

According to the report, "46.2 million people, [or] One out of seven people... were living in poverty in the United States in 2011 - the largest number of persons counted as poor in the 53 years of poverty measurements".

Shameful, huh? The wealthiest country on the planet and poverty is at an all time high. Yet, we have Conservatives like Dennis denying that poverty even exists! He further makes light of my use of the term "wage slave" by referring to a minimum wage earner's child as "well-fed". The truth is that 21.9 percent of children live in poverty, and "more than 20 million US children rely on school meal programs to keep from going hungry" (20 Facts About Child Hunger).

The reason Conservatives like Dennis deny the plight of the working poor is because they do not wish to pay slightly higher taxes to combat poverty. They also do not want to pay slightly more for their goods and services, so they rail against raising the minimum wage (many even call for eliminating it all together). They claim that a minimum wage HURTS low wage earners (because employers will be "forced" to fire them, or not hire them at all). This is categorically false, as I pointed out in my previous post. (It is also why they support job-destroying free trade agreements).

So why do these individuals deny the facts so emphatically? The answer is greed, plain and simple. Dennis' feigning concern over the trivialization of slavery is SO transparent. The term "wage slave" does NOT imply that the experience of real slaves wasn't (or isn't) worse, but his rejection of the term DOES trivialize poverty.

In Dennis' world slavery is awesome when the slave masters have no need for any concern at all regarding whether or not their slaves have adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Clearly empathy is a completely foreign concept to these individuals, which is why they have to pretend to be offended on behalf of people living in bondage, or pretend Liberals are jingoistic when they express concern about the outsourcing of good-paying American jobs (yes, this is another ridiculous claim Dennis regularly makes).

When Conservatives like Dennis spout this nonsense it is because they are trying to cover for their selfishness and greed - it's the same reason they accuse the president of being a "socialist" when he's actually a Conservative Democrat.

SWTD #123, dDel #1.

The Truth About the Minimum Wage

There are people who would like to get rid of minimum wage. But we have to have it, because if we didn't some people would not get paid money. They would work all week for two loaves of bread and some Spam ~ Chris Rock (dob 2/7/1965) an American comedian, actor, screenwriter, television producer, film producer, and director.

The following from a self described "Moderate" regarding President Obama's call for an increase in the minimum wage...

Willis Hart: The minimum wage hurts low-skilled workers and freezes them out of entry level opportunities. A young kid (and that's who generally make minimum wage; youngsters, retired folks, second-wager earners - and even they're only 3-5% of the work force - virtually ZERO bread-winners make the minimum wage and you really have to wonder about the wisdom of a person making minimum wage having kids) who I might be willing to give a chance at $5 an hour but not at $9 an hour (the idiotic suggestion by Obama) - that's the person who ends up getting hurt by the meddling of government. (2/18/2013 AT 2:55pm).

In response I say "baloney". Everything Mr. Hart asserts is completely false. They're Conservative talking points (from a "Moderate") designed to justify the payment of substandard wages (so the wealthy can put that money in their pocket). In my opinion this wage slavery is a form of theft - the most pervasive one that exists in the world.

What follows is an excerpt from the 2/16/2013 broadcast of MSNBC's Up With Chris Hayes, which supports my position (edited for brevity and clarity)...

Chris Hayes: One of the biggest surprises in President Obama's State of the Union address this week was his call for an increase in the federal minimum wage, up to $9 an hour from it's current level of $7.25. The president also called for indexing the minimum wage to inflation to ensure it rises in line with the cost of living.

[Video Excerpt] President Obama, from his SOTU address: Tonight let's declare that in the wealthiest nation on earth no one who works full time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour (Democrats applaud. Biden stands and applauds while Boner remains seated).

*Edit* (to cut down on the long applause, I presume). This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank. Rent or eviction. Scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country it would mean customers with more money in their pockets. [End Obama SOTU excerpt]

Chris Hayes: Republicans and business groups immediately began lining up against increasing the minimum wage. Here's House Speaker John Boehner the next day...

[Video Excerpt] John Boner, lying about the minimum wage: When you raise the price of employment, guess what happens? You get less of it. ...what happens when you take away the first couple of rungs on the economic ladder? You make it harder for people to get on the ladder. [End video clip of Boner lying so wealthy employers can continue stealing from workers]

Chris Hayes: John Boehner was channeling what conventional wisdom and economics 101 textbooks have told us for decades - that increasing the cost of employment causes reductions in employment. But, as it turns out that isn't the case. There's a growing body of strong empirical evidence suggesting that increases in the minimum wage - within a certain range - have no negative effect on employment. In fact, minimum wage increases may actually boost worker efficiency and add new demand to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of low wage workers.

The common GOP trope about those low wage workers is that many of them are teenagers, part-time, or summer jobs. But, in fact, according to the Economic Policy Institute are over 20 years old. Nearly half of those who would benefit from a minimum wage increase are full time workers, and over 54 percent have a combined family income of less than 40 thousand dollars a year.

Joining me now [is] Arindrajit Dube, assistant professor of economics, UMASS Amherst, who has done seminal research on the employment effects of minimum wage increases [and] Lew Prince, owner of Vintage Vinyl, a small business in St. Louis. He met with President Obama at the White House in November as part of a group of small business owners.

Great to have you here. ... if the government mandated that businesses sell a loaf of bread for $5, what we would see is less bread being sold. Because it was more expensive households would consume less of it. This [theory] was applied many years to the minimum wage... then empirical work started being done... Arin, can you walk us through what the research says about what the effect of the minimum wage is?

Arindrajit Dube: Starting in the early 90s, we started seeing a lot of variation [in the minimum wage] across states because the federal minimum wage was stagnant for so long... [this allowed researchers] to study the effects of the [differing] minimum wages. ...starting in the early 90s a set of studies looked at these variations and asked what happens when the minimum wage rises?

The famous one, of course, is by David Card and Alan Krueger [the 1992 study showed "that raising the minimum wage did not necessarily cost jobs"].

Chris Hayes: [Your research] where you have this massive database, 16 years of data... you correlate that - controlling for other factors - with employment, and you find?

Arindrajit Dube: No evidence of job loss in minimum wage jobs in the last 20 years. Whereas there is no reduction in jobs, we find, actually, a strong reduction in turnover.

Chris Hayes: Lew, does that jibe with your experience as a small business owner?

Lew Prince: Absolutely. One of the reason that I never paid a minimum wage is because it is very expensive to find and train good people. By paying more I can retain them. I can demand more of them, and it turns out they demand more of themselves.

Chris Hayes: This is known in economics as the efficiency wage. If you pay a wage above the market-clearing rate, you can actually induce more productivity. You can induce better work in the workers.

My Commentary: You can induce better work from workers by paying them a higher wage than the bare-minimum because people like it when their work is appreciated. Workers who know their work is appreciated will try harder for their employers. This is contrary to what Conservatives believe, which is a wage is only "fair" if it is as low a wage as the employer can possibly pay. That low wage is what the "market" determines... or so says the Conservative. They CLAIM that if the wage is to low that workers will go elsewhere.

What the Conservative IGNORES is the fact that the norm is for there to be an oversupply of workers relative to jobs. So, what happens when the supply of something is in excess of what is needed? The price is driven down! A lot of people looking for work doesn't make the value of their work less! It just makes it easier for employers to screw workers by offering substandard wages.

It's a take it or starve situation. Some people WOULD work for bread and Spam, which is fine by Conservatives (as it means the wealthy business owners can put more money in their pockets), and ensures them (they think) lower-priced goods and services (they always wildly exaggerate how much prices would go up with a higher minimum wage).

SWTD #122, wDel #14.

I Agree With Paul Ryan, Says "Moderate" Idiot

There aren't enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending ~ VP candidate and United States Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district Paul_Ryan (dob 1/21/1970) dissembles during the VP debate on 10/11/1012.

The following from blogger Willis Hart, a self described "Moderate", regarding the VP debate on Thursday 10/11/2012...

Willis Hart: Martha Raddatz asked Vice President Biden a very simple question tonight. She asked him what, other than raising taxes on the wealthy, would the Obama administration do to reduce the budget deficit. His hysterical response... was, "Just let the Bush tax-cuts for millionaires expire!" That was it. ...if [Biden] thinks that that's all that's necessary, then he is a total frigging idiot. (10/11/2013 AT 7:29pm).

Why? Because of the simple fact that raising taxes on the wealthy won't come close to making up the budget shortfall (he agrees with Paul Ryan, in other words). But what this "Moderate" fails to take into account is the positive effect that raising taxes on the wealthy will have on the economy. The government needs this money for programs to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Historical data shows that during the times when taxes were the highest the economy did the best. In a 7/10/2010 article that asked the question, are low taxes exacerbating the recession, David Sirota points out that, "though the Reagan zeitgeist created the illusion that taxes stunt economic growth, the numbers prove that higher marginal tax rates generate more resources for the job-creating, wage-generating public investments (roads, bridges, broadband, etc.) that sustain an economy.

They also create economic incentives for economy-sustaining capital investment [because] the easiest way wealthy business owners can avoid high-bracket tax rates is by plowing their profits back into their businesses and taking the corresponding write-off rather than simply pocketing the excess cash and paying an IRS levy".

So, no, Joe Biden was not an idiot to emphasize the fact that raising taxes on the wealthy would reduce the budget deficit. It would, in fact, raise much more than the 70 billion dollars a year that the "Moderate" says can't possibly make much of a difference. This "Moderate" is in favor of gutting entitlements, raising the retirement age, and otherwise placing the burden of paying our debts largely onto the backs of the middle class and poor.

This "Moderate" fully endorses the Bowles-Simpson proposal that includes cutting the corporate tax rate and benefits for seniors. Regarding the proposal, commission member Rep. Jan Schakowsky said "Bowles-Simpson is touted by inside-the-Beltway pundits who think that cutting benefits for seniors who have an average income of $22,000 a year is the type of hard choice we need to be making". Schakowsky concluded "we should not and need not reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors and others who survive on a low income".

Schakowsky presented her own plan that increased government investments to grow the economy. This represents the Liberal perspective regarding capitalism. Capitalism is a flawed system of which results in wealth concentrating at the top. The solution isn't the other extreme (socialism), but a mixed system in which the government intervenes to level the playing field and prevent total plutocracy via redistributive programs.

Yet "Moderates" and Conservatives still buy into the fairy tale that is supply-side economics. Even though Reagan's OMB director David Stockman admitted that Reagan's tax cut was a "Trojan horse to bring down the top rate", we keep voting Republicans into office who want to cut taxes and deregulate. bush did it and the result was the Great Recession. Now Romney says that, because Obama didn't turn things around fast enough, the answer is more failed voodoo economics!

Although "Moderates" seek to strike a balance between raising taxes and slashing entitlement programs. But I agree with Rep. Schakowsky, who said "the plan [Bowles-Simpson] is anything but balanced". Any plan that proposes small tax increases (nobody dares suggest anything higher than the Clinton rates) and cuts in investments and entitlement programs isn't balanced or "moderate" in my opinion. It's Conservative.

Joe Biden was right to emphasize the necessity of raising taxes, especially with the fiscal cliff looming. The Democrats MUST not buckle under again and make a deal that does not include tax INCREASES on the wealthy, although drastically cutting military spending is, I think, a close second (so Joe Biden could have mentioned that, and did not). But that isn't what the "Moderate" wanted to hear. In his mind the only "serious" solution to bringing down the deficit is to cut entitlement cuts and raise the retirement age; and with that assessment I must disagree completely.

Proposals like Bowles-Simpson would hurt the middle class and negatively impact the economy, but the "Moderate" instead focuses on the "unfairness" of "taking" too much of a wealthy individual's income (it is, in fact, the primary focus of his blog). Me, I don't know how someone can call themselves "moderate" when they worry SO MUCH about the wealthy being "overtaxed". That's what Conservatives do.

That is one of the responses the "Moderate" post received. A conservative who calls himself "dmarks" described Obama's desire for the tax rates (at least for the wealthy) to go back to where they were under Clinton as "unnecessary" and "greedy". I say it is greedy to cut programs that benefit the middle class and poor, whether the advocate for that course of action is a "Moderate" who thinks taxes could be raised a few percentage points (but entitlement cuts are a necessity) or a Conservative who is dead set against any tax increase (and plans on voting for Romney and tax cuts).

SWTD #121, wDel #13.

The Left Does Not Need to Lie to Make Romney Look Bad

When you express an attitude that half the country considers itself victims, that somehow they want to be dependent on government, my thinking is maybe you haven't gotten around a lot ~ Barack Obama (b. 8/4/1961) 44th president of the United States, responding to a question about Romney's bogus and insulting claim that 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax and believe they are victims and entitled to an array of federal benefits at a Univision town hall-style forum on 9/20/2012.

On 9/22/2012 self-described "Moderate" blogger Willis Hart asked the question, "still don't think that MSNBC lies like Fox?". The title of the post was a link to Youtube video of some remarks by Mitt Romney that were supposedly deceptively edited by NBC's Andrea Mitchell to enforce the Left's narrative that Mitt is a rich out-of-touch douche (Youtube video title: "MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Caught Blatantly Lying & Distorting The Truth About Mitt Romney").

My response, which I cannot make on his blog because he recently banned me, would have been that I don't think Andrea Mitchell lied. Primarily because lying to make Mittens look bad isn't necessary. Yes, the video was edited, and yes the edit did make it appear he was confused by the "amazing" technology he witnessed at a sandwich making business he had recently visited (Wawas of PA). After airing the edited video on her MSNBC program Andrea Mitchell Reports, Mitchell "suggested this might be Romney's supermarket scanner moment". The point he was actually making was that government is behind in using technology to improve it's efficiency because government has no competition.

So, the video WAS edited, and those edits did make it appear that Romney's comments are an example of him being rich and "out of touch" with the common man. However, when viewed in their full context, it is clear his comments are not an example of this. So, why do I doubt Andrea Mitchell lied? Because there are numerous other Romney quotes that the Left can use to "make Romney look bad". There is NO NEED for them to fabricate any. I suspect someone else edited the video and handed it off to someone at MSNBC. Andrea Mitchell did not lie... although an argument can be made that this is an example of poor reporting. Whoever put the story together (not necessarily Andrea Mitchell) did a bad job of confirming if the (out of context) quote was what it really appeared to be.

Regarding those quotes that actually do make Romney look bad (and make it completely unnecessary for the Left to have to fabricate any), two examples that recently were reported on include Romney making it clear he has no idea what a dirty bomb is, and that Romney thinks it would be a good idea for people to be able to open windows in airplanes (in case of a fire). The first comment I've transcribed from the 9/18/2012 broadcast of Rachel Maddow Show and is as follows (it is IN CONTEXT, BTW)...

(The quote is from the same video in which Romney disparages the 47 percent of people who refuse to take personal responsibility... according to him.)

Mitt Romney: I mean, if I were Iran and a crazed fanatic, I'd say, "Let's get a little fissile material to Hezbollah and have them carry it to Chicago or some other place. And then if anything goes wrong or America starts acting up, we'll say, guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we're gonna let off a dirty bomb.

Rachel Maddow: OK... Mitt Romney doesn't know what a dirty bomb is. A dirty bomb is not a nuclear explosion... you do not need to have a nuclear program in order to make a dirty bomb possible. You do not need fissile material from somebody's nuclear weapons program in order to put together a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb is just a regular bomb that explodes the regular way - except that it's been packed with radioactive material - and that radioactive material can come from anywhere. From medical waste, from a nuclear power plant (which Iran has)... Every country in the world has access to the radioactive material necessary to make a dirty bomb. By singling out a nuclear armed Iran as a threat to the US in terms of what it would take to make a dirty bomb, Mitt Romney has just display profound ignorance on a really important subject.

Back to my commentary: As has been pointed out, these 47 percent of people who don't pay income taxes include a lot of likely Romney voters (who may not be Romney voters anymore after hearing these remarks). Senior citizens, military personal, and voters who live in southern states (states that receive more in federal money than they pay in, as opposed to northern states that tend to vote democratic and pay in more than they get back). On the other hand, these people probably aren't paying attention (or seen this reported on Fox Nooz) so they'll probably still vote for Romney despite the utter contempt Romney clearly has for these people.

Now, on to my second example of Romney saying something dumb that makes it unnecessary for the Left to fabricate anything to support their "narrative" that Romney is out-of-touch, makes dumb gaffes, and is otherwise not qualified to be president.

As reported by the Huffington Post (and numerous other "less biased" news sources), a fire broke out on a private plane carrying Mitt Romney's wife Anne (which was then forced to make an emergency landing). Speaking about the incident, Romney said, "the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous". According to Romney, it's "dangerous" because "you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft...".

There are several problems with this statement. First of all, there is less oxygen at high altitudes, oxygen feeds a fire, and the pressure outside the plane isn't the same as inside it. Although, regarding the oxygen issue, Romney was concerned about the occupants of the plane being able to breath (I guess it didn't occur to him that fire needs oxygen to burn). The cabin pressure issue, I think, really makes this a super dumb statement. Or, perhaps he was just joking, as, according to the NYT writer who first filed on the comments, "it was clear from the context that he was not being serious".

If a "joke" then I agree with the Telegraph reporter who said Romney has "[a] sense of humour that no one else quite gets". In any case, we still have two examples of Romney making stupid gaffes that make it completely unnecessary for the Left to have to fabricate any. He disparaged the 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax, even though this number includes members of the Republican base, and his complete lack of understanding regarding what a dirty bomb is (and the fact that individuals in Iran could construct one absent Iran having a nuclear weapons program.

Andrea Mitchell lied? Why? There's no reason for her to lie; all the Left needs to do is tell the truth to make Romney look bad. Lie, and you can get caught, so why do it when it isn't necessary?

Also, who uses a link as the title of a blog post as Willis Hart of Contra O'Reilly does? Links are supposed to be embedded in your post. Try learning a little basic HTML. Failing that, don't use a frigging LINK as the TITLE of a blog post (put it in the body)! It just looks dumb.

SWTD #120

Republican Rigging Benefits Wealthy, Hurts Everyone Else

The fact that Romney may be viewed as wealthy doesn't necessarily pose problems for his candidacy. The challenge for Romney lies more in the fact that large majorities say if he is elected president, his policies would likely benefit the wealthy ~ Kim Parker, associate director of Pew Social & Demographic Trends. (Quote excerpted from the article, "Americans Say Rich Are Greedy, Dishonest, Don't Pay Enough In Taxes: Pew Report" by Hope Yen of the AP, 8/27/2012).

The following is an excerpt from the 9/2/2012 broadcast of MSNBC's Weekends With Alex Witt, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Host Alex Witt and guest Carmen Wong Ulrich discuss a new Pew poll that finds 75 percent of Americans believe the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Alex Witt: Now a new study that paints a fascinating picture of what Americans really think about rich people. Carmen Wong Ulrich is a personal finance expert and the president of Alta Wealth Management, so she's making people rich with that company.

As we get to this survey, it's from the Pew Research Center, it says people see those who are wealthy as more intelligent, more hard working, yet also greedy and less honest. Where does this come from?

Carmen: Well, here's the thing. If you break it along party lines... Democrats are much more likely to say that people who are rich are basically more greedy and less honest. Republicans are more likely to say they're intelligent and hard working. So it really cuts across party lines.

But a third to 50 percent of Americans said it doesn't matter if you're wealthy. That doesn't make you more intelligent or less likely to be honest. It doesn't matter at all. So it's a big number that said it doesn't matter.

Alex Witt: OK, let's get to taxes. This one shows, that when it comes to paying them, 58 percent said [the] rich pay too little, 26 percent said they pay their fair share, and just 8 percent say they pay too much. Anything here surprise you?

Carmen: No... Again, this split along party lines. 78 percent of Democrats say the wealthy do not pay enough in taxes. Only 33 percent of Republicans said the same thing.

Alex Witt: On the campaign trail wealth is certainly one of the big issues. What's the takeaway from what the study tells us... do you think this tells us more about how people view the rich...

Carmen: What it really showed is there is a belief that there is a huge income gap between the wealthy and the poor. 65 percent of Americans say that gap exists. The study asked, "do you believe the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"? Over 75 percent of Americans agreed. If you're a Democrat it's 92 percent, while if you're a Republican it's still over 50 percent. So, no matter what party they're in, people are saying America is changing and the rich are getting richer.

My Commentary: "Perception is reality", is one of the lines (I didn't quote) that Carmen used in commenting on this poll. I don't know if that means she does not believe the rich are getting richer at the expense of the rest of us, but I believe it is true. I know it isn't only a "perception", but that the facts show this is the case. I also agree with the people who responded to the poll who said the wealthy aren't necessarily more intelligent (50 percent) or harder working (34 percent).

But, if the wealthy aren't necessarily more intelligent or harder working then why are they getting richer while the rest of us are getting poorer? Certainly, being wealthy is a huge advantage, as making money after you already have money is a lot easier, but I strongly believe the reason is (in huge part) because our economic system is rigged to favor the wealthy.

This is an assertion that I have been ridiculed for on a Conservative blog I used to comment on. One commenter even claimed that this assertion was one of the reasons I was viewed as a "laughingstock" by the other people who frequent that blog. According to these people, those who complain of a rigged system (like the Occupy Movement) are simply jealous, lazy and greedy individuals who are looking for government handouts.

However, as Liberal talk show radio host Thom Hartmann correctly points out (in a 10/26/2006 article), "what's normal in a free and unfettered economy is the rapid evolution of a small but fabulously wealthy ownership class, and a large but poor working class". Historical evidence shows us that (under normal conditions[1]) only governmental economic and social policy can sustain a large and growing middle class.

Pew also found that "63 percent of Americans say the GOP favors the rich over the middle class and poor"[2]. I think the results of this poll make it clear that most people realize governmental policy supports the middle class, and that the reason it is currently in decline is due to a rigging of our economic system by the GOP. Here's hoping that translates into a win for Barack Obama in November.

Footnotes
[1] The other method by which a middle class can arise is by, "a sudden change in the relationship between population and resources. After the Black Death wiped out more than a third of the population in 14th century Europe, the increased demand for labor drove up the price of labor to the point when a middle class emerged in some places. Many historians identify this as one of the factors that brought about the Renaissance". (Excerpt from the 10/26/2006 Thom Hartmann article, "There's Nothing Normal About A Middle Class").
[2] From the AP article, "Americans Say Rich Are Greedy, Dishonest, Don't Pay Enough In Taxes: Pew Report" by Hope Yen, 8/27/2012.

SWTD #119

Romney's Tax Plan Would Complete Reagan's Dream of an American Oligarchy

Where some people are very wealthy and others have nothing, the result will be either extreme democracy or absolute oligarchy, or despotism will come from either of those excesses ~ Aristotle (384 BC to 322 BC) a Greek philosopher who was a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy.

The Walton family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. The top 1 percent owns 40 percent of the nation's wealth while the bottom 60 percent own less than 2 percent. Between 2009 and 2010 93 percent of all new income went to the top 1 percent, the other 99 percent shared the remaining 7 percent. The United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any industrialized nation on earth and it is worse now than since the 1920s. The United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. [source: Bernie Sanders on the 8/3/2012 Stephanie Miller Show].

In response John Fugelsang asked: "if 60 percent of the population controls only 2 percent of the wealth, does that mean that the top 40 percent needs to pay 98 percent of the taxes?" [John Fugelsang is a friday regular on the Stephanie Miller Show].

The rigged tax system of the United States has been moving up toward oligarchy for the past 30 years - ever since Ronald Reagan set us on that path. According to a non-partisan analysis conducted by the Brookings Institute and the Tax Policy Center, "...a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible".

Mitt Romney says he will reduce taxes across the board, but in reality his elimination of deductions would RAISE taxes on middle and lower income taxpayers. The Brookings/Tax Policy analysis says, "[Romney's] tax cuts predominantly favor upper-income taxpayers. Taxpayers with incomes over $1 million would see their after-tax income increased by 8.3 percent (an average tax cut of about $175,000)... while the after-tax income of taxpayers earning less than $30,000 would actually decrease by about 0.9 percent (an average tax increase of about $130)".

In other words: Romney wants YOU to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy! Unless you're rich and greedy, why would you cast your ballot for Mitt Romney? Barack Obama should win re-election in a landslide, but we all know he won't. It's going to be close. Why? I've been declared "arrogant" for saying so, but I'm convinced that a lot of voters are allowing themselves to be tricked into voting for oligarchy.

SWTD #118

A Decidedly Non-Auspicious Adventure, Part 1

When you're safe at home you wish you were having an adventure; when you're having an adventure you wish you were safe at home -- Thornton Wilder (4/17/1897 to 12/7/1975) an American playwright and novelist who won three Pulitzer Prizes.

Suri Cruz backed away slowly. Her companion William was drawing far too much attention, and Suri knew it was only a matter of time before the police arrived. Sure enough, a number of uniformed officers emerged from the crowd after William punched a portly woman in the gut. The crowd started shouting and several people pointed fingers at William. The overweight woman sank to her knees without a sound, then fell on her face and lay there unmoving.

"Great", thought Suri. This appeared to be William's second murder of the day!

One of the uniformed officers commanded William to surrender, and he took off running down an alleyway. Suri pushed her way through the crowd, intent on getting back to the inn as quickly as possible. As far as she knew the authorities were looking for her, an accessory to the earlier murder, wherein William slugged a priest in the nose, causing him to fall and hit his head in the stone courtyard outside the temple of the oracles.

Suri intended to grab her gear and clear out of town before she was found and arrested. This wasn't the first time William's actions had led to the deaths of innocent people. The adventuring party she and William belonged to previously was wiped out in a disastrous encounter with the Caecilanoids of the Underdark. A party of seven people was whittled down to just two -- her and William -- before they finally made it back to Schultzberg, the small hamlet both she and William had grown up in.

After they successfully located the Caecilanite treasure, the others seemed overjoyed, quickly forgetting the earlier death of Artemis, Suri's mage apprentice. The gangly teenager died when a spell he was casting fizzled and he was knifed in the gut by one of the small group of goblins that attacked them shortly after they entered the caverns.

Suri blamed herself. She never should have allowed Artemis to accompany them on such a dangerous mission. But Artemis had demonstrated himself to be a promising magic user on their first few missions, and, when he begged her to allow him to travel with them into the Underdark, she relented when William promised he'd keep an eye on the young magic user. How foolish that decision had proven! After easily dispatching the half-dozen goblins, everyone -- including William -- was shocked to find Artemis near death.

Joshua, the half-elf cleric attempted a healing spell, but was too late.

"I messed up the incantation", Artemis muttered as Suri cradled his head in her arms.

"A healing spell, stat!" she shouted at Joshua. The holy man laid his hands on the boy and began to chant, but Artemis was already gone. "What am I going to tell his parents?" Suri exclaimed, glaring at William.

"Why are you glaring at me?" William asked. "I don't know his parents".

"You promised to keep an eye on him", Suri cried.

"Oh, yea, I did do that", William said, remembering his earlier pledge. "It didn't even occur to me that a couple of goblins would be a problem for the kid".

Suri suggested that they abandon the mission and return home, but was outvoted by the rest of the group. Suri did manage to convince the companions to cover the body with some rocks, and she vowed to return at a later date.

"His family would want his body returned for a proper burial", Suri explained when William complained about the time they were wasting. She knelt down and said a silent prayer, tears filling her eyes.

Several days later they finally located the chamber where the secret door leading to the treasure was supposedly located. The yellowed map Artemis' father found among some old papers that belonged to a now deceased grandfather led the way.

"Completing the mission is the least we can do to honor Artemis' memory", a self-serving William reasoned. Everyone except for Suri agreed.

The halfling thief, Leeta the Lucky, ran her hands over the smooth stone walls, using her unique skills in an attempt to locate the secret door... if it existed. The pale light of a glowing stone atop Suri's staff illuminated the chamber. After 20 minutes or so had passed Suri heard a squeal escape Leeta's lips. "I found a lever", she said. "I think this may be it".

Suri looked at Leeta and saw the small female halfling squatting in a dark corner, her hand wedged into a narrow crevice where the wall met the floor. Leeta pulled furiously and a crack appeared in the wall. A rectangular outline materialized in what had once been a solid stone wall, then a door swung open.

Abel, one of two burly blond blue-eyed fighters was about to step through when Leeta hissed, "wait, I need to check for traps!"

"Nonsense", William said scowling at the halfling. "Enough time-wasting, let's go get that treasure!"

"Indeed", Abel agreed, "Me and my brother have had enough of this dark place. We want to go home". He strode through the opening and was promptly skewered in the side with a massive spear that sprang from the door frame.

"My Gods!" screamed Abel's brother Rutger. He rushed to his brother's side, but it was too late, the spear had slain Abel instantly.

Unable to enter the room because Abel's large frame blocked the doorway, William swung his sword and hacked through the shaft of the spear with three mighty blows. Rutger grabbed his brother around the waist and gently lowered him to the ground.

"Who will help me carry my brother's body home?" Rutger asked.

"We'll deal with that after retrieving the treasure", William answered. "But first I think Leeta should check for traps".

"Sure, now's a good time to check for traps", Suri remarked sarcastically.

A visibly angry Rutger looked like he might leap to his feet and attack William, but was stopped when Joshua knelt down next to him to say a blessing over his dead brother's body. Joshua closed Abel's eyes, finished his prayers, and the remaining companions proceeded through the doorway after Leeta determined the spear was the only booby trap present.

Image: The inexperienced magic user, Artemis, faces off against a horde of goblins. He attempts to cast a spell, but it fizzles.

 swtd-117. wtm-5.  Previous. Next.

War Criminal Hypocrite

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. ...an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses ~ Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith writing for The Center for Public Integrity, 1/23/2008.

When commenting on other blogs I often, when the topic comes up, refer to George bush (and others in his administration) as "war criminals". The reason I believe the label is applicable is mainly due to his invasion of Iraq and authorization of waterboarding. But lately, on a another site the blogger dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) has been "calling me out" for my "hypocrisy" whenever I do it (use the "war criminal" label when referring to bush and bush administration officials).

According to Mr. Marks, if I were consistent and not a hypocrite, I'd have to acknowledge that Bill Clinton is also a war criminal, because he authorized the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 without UN authorization, which is the "same" thing bush did when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

Dennis says the only reason I say bush is a war criminal while Bill Clinton is not is because bush has an "R" behind his name. Of course these accusations are patently absurd due to a few important distinctions between the bombing of Yugoslavia and the invasion of Iraq.

In order to "catch" me in my hypocrisy, Dennis asked me if "George W. Bush [was] lying when he said that Saddam Hussein had been engaged in the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction technology which was a threat to countries in the region and he had made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"?

Turns out this is actually something Nancy Pelosi said, so when I said, "yes, bush lied", Dennis responded with the following...

Dennis Marks: Bush told the truth. We all know this. However, the quote I gave you was a bit of a "sting". It proved two things: your hypocrisy, and that you never bother to check anything. (5/9/2012 AT 8:11am).

So it looks like Dennis got me good, huh? Except that the Nancy Pelosi comment is from 12/16/1998 (when Clinton was president) and actually represents what the politicians believed to be true at the time. Also, Nancy Pelosi did not then conclude that we must go to war with Iraq in order to "disarm" them, and neither did president Clinton.

Also, what Nancy Pelosi said was in line with what United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter reported regarding Iraq's WMD program. In August of 1998 Scott Ritter said that, absent effective monitoring, Iraq could "reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program".

The intent of Pelosi's statement was to keep up the pressure on Iraq and to signal her support for the UN inspections. The Clinton administration was in favor of containment and inspections and not of waging war. And the Clinton administration policy of keeping the pressure on Iraq paid off, because in June of 1999 weapons inspector Scott Ritter said, "when you ask the question, does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons? the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is NO across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed".

In early 2003 The UN weapons inspectors (who had been absent from Iraq for several years) were in the process of verifying if Iraq was in compliance with the UN Resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said the inspectors "found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament". According to Blix the open issue would be resolved in a matter of months.

Then, on 3/7/2003, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, confirmed that what Scott Ritter said in 1999 was true when he told the UN Security Council that, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites, they found there was no evidence of resumed nuclear activities, nor any indication of nuclear-related activities at any related sites. He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program. He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997.

So, the question is why - even though it appeared as though Iraq was complying - did bush order "shock and awe" on 3/19/2012 and a ground invasion on 3/20/2003... a mere 12 days after Mohamed ElBaradei said Iraq was complying and no WMD had been found? According to bush the mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". How could disarming Iraq be bush's primary reason for toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein when the UN weapons inspectors on the ground were reporting that Iraq was already disarmed?

bush obviously did not "tell the truth". Given what the inspectors ON THE GROUND were saying, bush clearly LIED. So, not only did bush invade Iraq without UN authorization (violating articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter) but he ordered an invasion to "disarm" Iraq when the UN inspectors were telling him Iraq was already disarmed.

This is quite different than what Bill Clinton did when he authorized the use of American troops in a NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 to stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Albanians by nationalist Serbians in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's province of Kosovo. Yes, Bill Clinton bypassed The UN. According to Wikipedia, "the issue was brought before the UN Security Council by Russia, in a draft resolution [that said] 'such unilateral use of force constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter'. China, Namibia and Russia voted for the resolution, the other members against, thus it failed to pass".

So neither president's war (Clinton/Yugoslavia and bush/Iraq) was authorized by the UN, and, because of this, I think the case can be made that each is a war criminal - if UN authorization is the only criteria used in determining if a war is "legal". Certainly others HAVE argued that Bill Clinton is a war criminal (do a Google search if you don't believe me). But SHOULD each be charged with war crimes? I say "no", because Bill Clinton did obtain the authorization of another international body (NATO), whereas bush went to the UN and argued his case... and the UN specifically said "no". And not only did they say no to the invasion, they also said no to his claim that Iraq was not disarming.

To Clinton the UN did NOT say "no". To bush they did say "no".

Also, while Bill Clinton authorized bombing to stop war crimes, which resulted in the real war criminal (Slobodan Milosevic) being brought to trial, bush authorized an invasion based on a lie. Iraq had no WMD, which the UN weapons inspectors told him BEFORE he invaded. Later, when no weapons were found, bush blamed an "intelligence failure".

I think this explains why the people of Serbia consider President Clinton a hero and erected a statue statue to honor his actions that stopped the brutal Serb forces' crackdown on independence-seeking ethnic Albanians, whereas, in Iraq, one Iraqi showed his appreciation for bush's invasion by calling him a "dog" and throwing his shoe at him (which is a sign of contempt in Arab culture). According to Muntadar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi television journalist who threw the shoe bush narrowly ducked, his action was intended as "a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people".

"This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq" al-Zaidi shouted as he threw his second shoe. He was referring to the huge number of Iraqis killed since the war began. A peer-reviewed study from the prestigious medical journal The Lancet says approximately 1.4 people have been killed as a result of the conflict. Although the 1.4 million figure is an estimate, it is an estimate with a 95 percent confidence interval (Wikipedia: "In statistics, a confidence interval... is used to indicate the reliability of an estimate").

Also, Lila Guterman, writing in a in a January 2005 Columbia Journalism Review article stated, "I called about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts. Not one of them took issue with the study's methods or it's conclusions. If anything, the scientists told me, the authors had been cautious in their estimates".

The blogger who declared me to be a hypocrite says the Lancet's casualty estimates are "pulled from thin air with no evidence", but the real reason he objects is because pointing out how many innocent lives bush's illegal war has cost illustrates how enormous and disgusting a lie his claim that "bush told the truth and saved lives" is.

There is also the failed reconstruction, the primary purpose of which was to enrich the bush administration's contractor buddies. Given the fact that so many of these contractors over billed the government and did shoddy work on top of that, and so few of them were prosecuted - what else can one conclude?

Finally there is the bush administration's violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, states that "physical or mental torture [as well as] any other form of coercion" is prohibited. Under the Geneva Conventions torture is defined as a "grave breach" and individuals involved can be prosecuted for war crimes.

Furthermore, during the tribunal that convened following the war in the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Court found that these "provisions are considered customary international law, allowing war crimes prosecution by the United Nations and its International Court of Justice over groups that have signed and have not signed the Geneva Conventions.

bush authorized torture by his own admission, although the torture he admits to authorizing is "only" the waterboarding of three individuals. But far more individuals than the three detainees who were waterboarded were subjected to torture. The photographic evidence of the torture that took place at Abu Ghraib is proof of that.

Human Rights Watch says that "Al-Qaeda detainees would likely not be accorded POW status, but the [Geneva] Conventions still provide explicit protections to all persons held in an international armed conflict, even if they are not entitled to POW status. Such protections include the right to be free from coercive interrogation, to receive a fair trial if charged with a criminal offense, and, in the case of detained civilians, to be able to appeal periodically the security rationale for continued detention".

In regards to "detained civilians", bush administration official Lawrence B. Wilkerson (chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell) contended that there are innocent civilians being held (indefinitely) at Gitmo. Mr. Wilkerson said, "there are still innocent people there. Some have been there six or seven years". Gavin Sullivan of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights says "[bush] bears ultimate responsibility for authorizing the torture of thousands of individuals at places like Guantánamo and secret CIA black sites around the world".

The Iraqi people are aware of all of these factors - bush lying about WMD, the large number of deaths from collateral damage and the civil war the invasion unleashed, the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and detention of innocent Iraqis, the billions that went to corrupt US companies instead of to Iraqis (who could have rebuild their own infrastructure), and the theft of their oil on behalf of Western oil firms - and this is why they will NEVER erect a statue in bush's honor.

Most recently the blogger who criticizes me said that my "ignorant, personal interpretation of international law [has] crumbled to dust". The straw man he has set up is that the ONLY reason I call bush a war criminal is because he violated the UN Charter by not obtaining UN authorization to invade Iraq, but Clinton did the same, and since I don't agree I'm an ignorant hypocrite.

But, as I've just proven, aside from neither Clinton nor bush receiving UN approval for their military actions, the situations are not at all comparable. And, when Dennis says my case against bush rests "entirely" on the singular fact that bush invaded Iraq without UN authorization, he's lying. I'm not a hypocrite, and bush IS a war criminal, albeit an unprosecuted one.

SWTD #116

Melee at May Day's

I'ma steal this boo, when the cops behind me. It's kill or be killed, but them niggas can't find me. -- C-Murder (b. 3/9/1971) AKA Corey Miller; an American rapper and convicted murderer who has released 8 albums. He is currently serving life imprisonment following his conviction for a 2nd degree murder committed in 2002.

William ran down the alleyway with four officers of the Lord Mayor's police force in hot pursuit.

"Halt!" the lead officer commanded again.

That damn Suri abandoned me! William thought while running. He was fairly tired now, what with all the earlier running, but if caught he knew he'd go back to prison for sure. Spying an open door, William quickly dashed inside, barreling into a man who had his hand on the knob and was in the process of shutting it.

The man went flying down a flight of stairs, although he pulled the door shut behind him before his hand was yanked from the knob. William, not wanting to get trapped below ground with no exit may have hesitated if not for the fact that following the stairs down was the only option, what with the Lord Mayor's officers hot on his heels. He leapt down the steps two and three at a time, jumping over the man's body when he got to the bottom. Glancing at the man, William could see he was quite dead, his neck snapped. A pool of blood was already forming beneath his cracked skull.

At the bottom of the steps was a dimly lit room filled with several rows of dirty cots; a flophouse that provided beds for the city's poor for the cost of a few coppers. A decrepit old crone who had been sweeping the floor looked up in shock as William vaulted over the body of the man he had just accidentally killed.

"You murdered my son!" the woman shrieked.

William saw another staircase on the opposite end of the room which he assumed led back up to the street, but the old bat stood directly in his path between the rows of cots.

William hesitated for a split second, until he noticed the old woman had begun to speak in gibberish and wave a stick around. Either she had lost her mind or she was casting a spell. William charged the woman, determined to take her out before she could finish her incantation. Unfortunately he was too late. Suddenly William felt incredibly drowsy. Feeling his eyes closing, William staggered and fell to his knees. The hag had hit him with a sleep spell! William recognized the effects, having been the target of this magic previously.

Fighting the strong desire to lie down, William shook off his drowsiness and rose shakily to his feet -- just in time to see a gray-haired old man charging him with a hefty looking broadsword held above his head. Obviously the bastard intended to behead William while in a vulnerable position (on his knees and almost asleep).

"Look out Father!" the hag shouted.

But the old man didn't have time to react before William skewered him with his weapon, killing the geezer instantly.

"Noooo!" the hag cried as William's attacker fell to the ground, blood gushing from his grievous wound.

William pulled his sword from Father's belly, spilling his guts on the floor. Then William turned his attention back to the old woman who was now furiously rubbing her glowing hands together. William took but a step forward when the woman opened her hands and showed him her palms. A bolt of bluish white sprang forth, shot across the room, and hit William square in the chest.

Pain racked William's body and he staggered back as the electrical energy coursed through his body. William had had just about enough of this old bat! Energized by pure rage William sprang forward and swung his sword with tremendous force. A look of abject horror flashed across the woman's face for a brief second before William's sword separated her head from her body.

His feet touched the ground at the same instant the hag's head bounced off the stone floor and rolled away into a corner. She stood there for a few seconds until her headless body crumpled and fell in a heap.

Exhausted, with smoke rising from the cauterized wound on his chest, William barely had time to process what had just transpired when he heard the door at top of the steps burst open and two of the policemen who had been pursuing him moments earlier thundered down the stairs.

"There he is!" shouted the lead officer, almost tripping over the body lying at the foot of the staircase. Just in time the officer noticed the dead man he had just been about to step on, extended his stride and placed his foot forcefully down in the pool of blood surrounding the man's head. His foot slipped in the blood and his leg shot out from underneath. He flew backwards, landing forcefully on his back.

William turned, not having the energy to run or even lift his sword, and saw the officer's head strike the staircase, splitting open his cranium. The second officer stopped, starring in disbelief at his fallen compatriot. Shaking off his shock, the officer sidestepped the bodies at the foot of the stairs, faced William and drew his sword.

"Me taking you peacefully into custody is no longer an option, murderer", the officer growled.

"I surrender!" William cried, more fearful now of being killed than being apprehended.

"I do not accept", the policeman replied, thrusting his sword at William. The officer's sword grazed William's arm, cutting through the sleeve of his tunic and opening a shallow gash in his right arm. As William and his would-be killer faced off the remaining two officers who had been pursuing him previously arrived and descended the steps into the room.

"This butcher just slaughtered May Day and her family, as well as our fellow officer", the man who had just slashed William's arm informed his fellow officers.

"My gods, look at the carnage!" one of the newcomers gasped. The two newly arrived policemen drew their swords and joined their friend in facing down William.

"I surrender!" William cried again.

"Then throw down your weapon", the officer who had just refused his surrender ordered.

"I want to, but you'll kill me", William whimpered.

"Not until after the trial", another of the officers countered, probably lying. But either way it was a fight to the death William concluded as he raised his sword.

Image: May Day fires a magic missile at William in self defense after William accidentally kills her son and on purpose murders her husband.

 swtd-115. wtm-4.  Previous. Next.