I thought I'd send my Senator a friendly little note.

I decided I'd execise my civic duty and send a letter to one of my elected representatives, Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio. What do you think....

Dear Senator DeWine,

I felt that I should write to you regarding an issue of great concern to me. You are one of my Senators, and I felt you should hear the concerns of one of your constituents.

The recent revelations in the media about a deal to sell control of 21 (NOT 6) U.S. ports to a U.A.E. controlled company has many Americans alarmed, myself included. It's very disturbing to me that the current administration is willing to put our national security at risk by turning over control of these ports to a country that has a very questionable record on terrorism issues. I also have serious concerns regarding the relationships that have, and may continue to exist between this U.A.E. company, DP World, and members of the administration; including Secretary of the Treasury John Snow and appointee to the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation, David C. Sanborn. Finally, it is very troubling that the administration has not been terribly forthcoming in providing information on the review of this deal, and has threatened to veto any legislation blocking it, while at the same time claiming they didn't know about it.

Having said all that, I'd like to sincerely request that you support this deal vigorously, and as publicly as possible. After all, you've been very loyal in your support of this President in the past, so I feel you should be consistent in your actions. That way, in advance of the mid-term elections, your voting constituents can get a real feel for the type of patriot you are, consistently putting party before country. Given your track record, I'm sure you won't disappoint me.

Don't worry Senator, when you lose in November I'm sure you'll receive plenty of high paying job offers. Who knows, perhaps you can go to work for a huge transportation company in Dubai.

Sincerely,...

I don't know, d'ya think I was too polite?

Happy Mardi Gras! And don't mind the mess.

Today in the big easy revelers are celebrating fat Tuesday as they have for years. Well, it's almost the same as it used to be. Just ignore the devastation blocks away from Bourbon Street, and it's just like Katrina never happened. Perhaps FEMA, perhaps the Department of Homeland Security, perhaps the administration would like to look at it that way. But the citizens of the Gulf Coast know different.

They know that when the partying is over, they'll have to go back to what's left of their homes (if anything). They'll have to wait patiently for the government to make good on all its promises. They'll have to slowly but surely put the pieces of their lives back together. Six months to the day since Katrina made landfall, and still the citizens of New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities have to face the aftermath with little or no assistance from the government of the richest country in the world.

It's an outrage. It's a travesty. And in the end, it's more proof that we have an administration with little of no competence to deal with national security, natural disasters, and the general welfare of the people of this country. We've heard people in the administration admit to the failings in their initial response to Katrina. Great. That's admirable. But it's six months later. What are you doing NOW?

Where are the thousands of trailers that were promised for the residents? In Arkansas? Yeah, they'll do alot of good there. Apparently the administration is not only ethically challenged, it's geographically challenged as well. Where is the massive clean-up effort? Why six months later is very little being done to remove the debris and prepare for rebuilding? The time is over to mourn. The time is over to spin the story. The time is over to lay blame. It's time to do something.

Corruption. Criminal negligence. Dereliction of duty. Obstruction of justice. Take your pick. In my opinion, they all qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors." It's high time for Bush & Co. to pay the piper.

U.S. National Security: For sale to the highest bidder.

This port deal with UAE's DP World keeps getting better and better. Now we discover that the acquisition encompasses 21, NOT 6 U.S. ports. So when exactly was the administration going to make that little fact public? And then there's the issue of Bush nominating David C. Sanborn as head of the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation on the SAME DAY as the approval of the port deal by the semi-secret Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Who is David C. Sanborn? He's the former Director of Europe and Latin America operations for you guessed it, DP World. Coincidence? Better chance of being struck twice by lightning while holding a black cat under a ladder on Friday the thirteenth. You get the picture.

Turns out that DP World was really hot to acquire the British company (P&O) that managed these 21 ports. They trumped a bid by a Singapore company by 10.6% to get the acquisition. Of course the only way you can find that out is to read a document on P&O's website that is marked as "NOT FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN, INTO OR FROM CANADA, JAPAN, OR THE UNITED STATES". Gee, I wonder why they don't want U.S. citizens to read about that? Something fishy here.

All the while, Bush & Co. say "don't worry, everything's alright, trust us". Right. Sure. What was that P.T. Barnum once said? President Bush threatens to veto any legislation that would block the acquisition, and then, the following day, claims that he didn't actually know about the deal until he heard about it in the media. Sure. And I suppose that you didn't know that David Sanborn was a former DP World exec.? These guys can't even get their lies straight.

The bottom line it that national security is taking a back seat to the financial security of the well-connected.

I expect to see a classified ad soon that reads: "FOR SALE - 230 yr. old democracy, low mileage, trusting and easily manipulated population, includes large nuclear, chemical and biological arsenals, priced to move. Only seriously questionable foreign agents or huge unscrupulous multi-nationals need apply."

Too many traitors. Not enough patriots.

Treason. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists the first definition as: "the betrayal of a trust". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language lists treason as: "Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies." I believe that the current administration, Republican members of Congress and the Senate, and the Republican party as a whole, fit the bill. That's right, I said you are traitors. I'm calling you out, and I'm daring you to prove me wrong.

Why do I say this? Because actions speak louder than words. You can wave the flag all you want, label yourselves patriots, preach about family values and homeland security. But at the end of the day, you have failed your country and betrayed its people. Betrayed it to the tune of 2300 dead U.S. military in Iraq. Betrayed it to the tune of 272 dead U.S. military in Afghanistan. Betrayed it through the blatant and repeated assaults on the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it was established to protect. At the end of the day, if you support or blindy follow this administration, this Republican Congress, and put party before country, you are a traitor. Deal with it.

I am absolutely sick and tired of the Republicans portraying themselves as patriots and suggesting that liberals are trying to weaken our country. The truth is, we liberals are trying to strengthen our nation, while the Republicans are trying to weaken the Constitution. That's not opinion, it's fact. As I said, actions speak louder than words, and the proof is in the actions of this administration and the Republican rubber-stamp that is the U.S. Congress.

Wiser men than I seemed to get it:

"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!" - Albert Einstein

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." - General Charles De Gaulle

When will the rest of America get it? Blindly following those who would bring you to your own ruin doesn't make you righteous, it simply makes you stupid.

And another thing....

Just a follow-up on my previous post. Some questions that I've been asking myself, and I thought that I would toss them out into cyberspace to see if anyone has any sensible answers:

Who stands to gain from perpetual, large-scale armed conflict involving the U.S. military?

Who potentially profits from instability in the area of the world that provides most of the world's oil?

Who truly controls the drug trade coming out of Afghanistan, and who is profiting from it?

What REALLY happened on Septemeber 11, 2001. I'm serious. What really happened. Are you so sure you know the WHOLE truth about this event? Would you bet your life one it? Would you bet your freedom?

I'm not suggesting any specific conclusions. I'm not promoting any particular theories. But questions have to be asked. The truth has to be discovered. The future of this country, and this world depends on it.

"If you break it, you own it."

Prophetic words. This quote was attributed to then Secretary of State Colin Powell, advising President Bush in advance of the invasion of Iraq. In light of recent events, these words ring true. For now we see the likely beginning of an all-out civil war in Iraq.

While the recent events that have triggered internal conflict in Iraq were not the work of the United States, we still are culpable. We created the perfect atmosphere for this to occur. We invaded a sovereign nation, leading to it's rapid destabilization, killed innocent civilians by the thousands, and provided no security or restoration of infrastructure in the wake of our military operations. What did you expect to happen, Mr. President? Did you give any thought at all to the likely results of your decisions? You broke it, you bought it.

And what is the likely long term result of our ill-conceived escapade in Iraq? The emergence of a nuclear armed Shia Arab super-state in the form of Iran/Iraq. Because in the event of a full scale civil war in Iraq, Iran will not stay on the sidelines to watch. They will take sides, and they will get directly involved. They will surely see it as an opportunity to increase their influence in the Arab world, and piss off the U.S. at the same time. For Iran, it's a win-win proposition. Did you give that some consideration Mr. Bush?

And what about our great success in Afghanistan? Well, let's see... Afghanistan is now the world's largest poppy producing nation. What was that Mr. President? Your "agricultural program" for Afghanistan? Afghanistan now has a U.S. hand-picked government that we continue to prop up, pretending to run the country. In reality, the majority of this country is controlled by the war-lords, who now have plenty of funding from the drug trade, plenty of U.S. issued weaponry, and they don't answer to the puppet regime. Who do they answer to? Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden.

So let's review... We have a drug-funded, Islamic extremist leaning, wild wild west of a country that borders not one, but potentially two Islamic nuclear states. And we have a country with no stability, filled with elements committed to the destruction of the United States and Israel, disintegrating into all-out civil war, with a nuclear-aspiring neighbor waiting to pick up the pieces. Great job Mr. President, you really hit that one out of the park!

It's inconceivable. The most powerful man in the world is a rapture-right zealot who is convinced we're in the "end of days." And he seems to be willing to do everything in his power to make sure he's right about that.

My weekend project? Building a bomb shelter.

Bigotry and Discrimination in the guise of "protecting the children".

The civil rights movement is not over. Far from it. Yesterday it manifested itself in the boycotts in the south and peaceful marches throughout the country. Today it is manifesting itself in the outrage felt and expressed throughout our nation over the discriminatory practices being enacted by the current administration and their ilk. In the sixties the main targets of discrimination in this country were African Americans and poor Americans. Today, the main targets of discrimination are African Americans, poor Americans, Latin Americans, Arab Americans, and Gay Americans. Have we made progress since the sixties in the battle for civil rights? I wonder.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These aren't just words. They mean something. They mean that until ALL Americans are free to exercise their rights, then none of us are free. This includes Gay Americans, the latest targets in the current administration's efforts to restrict the rights of the groups it considers "objectionable".

Ohio is now introducing legislation that would ban the adoption or foster care of children by gay or lesbian individuals or couples. And Ohio is not alone. There are efforts in at least 15 other states to pass similar restrictions. Advocates of this attack on civil liberties are citing the welfare of adopted and foster children as their concern. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America, and many adoption advocacy groups have pointed out that their research indicates that children raised in homes with Gay adoptive or foster parents fare as well, or better than those raised in heterosexual households. But, as always, the conservative right never lets the facts get in the way of their agenda.

I'm straight, and have chosen to share my life with my wonderful wife. I have friends who are gay, and have chosen to share their lives with their equally wonderful partners. Why does the fact that I chose to have someone of the opposite sex as my partner necessarily make me a better parent? Gays have just as much capacity for love, just as much capability to provide a safe, nurturing environment, so what is the argument?

Most arguments that I've heard from those on the right involve providing an "optimal home environment" for foster and adopted children, but if you push them on the issue, it will likely boil down to religious grounds. So I'd like to know, exactly where in the Constitution can I find the passage "for additional information, please consult the King James Bible". You cannot legislate morality. You cannot legislate religion. Smarter people than I have come to that conclusion. And in the end, I would hope that any such law that passes will be struck down by the courts, because there is absolutely no basis for it in the Constitution.

This of course follows on the heels of the administration's efforts to get a Constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, and the passing of legislation in 11 states to ban it. Sure seems to me that this regime has a real hard-on for gay people. Let's see Scott McClellan try to spin that one.

The inmates are running the asylum.

Hello? Anybody home?

Okay, let me get this straight.... A President who has never vetoed anything, one who hasn't met a porkbarrel bill he doesn't like, is now threatening to veto any legislation that would jeopardize a deal to put an Arab country in charge of six vital U.S. ports. Republicans and Democrats alike are trying to put the brakes on this deal. Majority leader Senator Bill Frist, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and many other Republicans who normally blindly drink the kool-aid, are publicly speaking out about their concerns on this deal.

But Bush & Co. claim that control of the ports by the UAE company would not be any threat to national security. Never mind the fact that the UAE banking system was the ATM of choice for the 9/11 highjackers. Never mind the fact that the UAE has time and again been tied to, and tolerant of, terrorist activity. Tell me Mr. President, what exactly DO you consider to be a threat to national security.

I suppose it shouldn't surprise anyone. Dumbya is just following in grand daddy Prescott Bush's footsteps. You see, Prescott Bush had a hard time identifying the enemy as well, being the banker to the Third Reich. It wasn't until the government threatened to throw him in jail and they seized the assets of his business under the Trading with the Enemy Act, that Prescott Bush ended his association with the Nazis. That was in 1942.

Here's the article I'm citing (I've also confirmed this through other sources):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

When are we going to take this administration to task? At what point in time does treason trump profiteering? Does anyone doubt that the underlying reason behind the President's sudden threat to veto is a financial one, either for him or one of his cronies? Wake up America.

Centuries from now, someone will pick up an American History book from our era and think that it's a novel. 'Cause there's no way this stuff could happen in reality.

Let's issue a stay of execution on executions.

A California man, who had been scheduled to be executed last night, has been given a short reprieve, thanks to the consciences of two anesthesiologists. Michael Angelo Morales, convicted for the rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl 25 years ago, will draw breath for at least one more day.

Morales attorneys had previously argued that the combination of chemicals used in lethal injections would cause excruciating pain, and therefore violate the eighth amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". In response, a federal judge ordered that either the state should retain doctors to sedate the condemned man, or carry out the death penalty using an overdose of sedatives. The state opted for the first option, and hired two anesthesiologists to sedate Morales.

At the last minute, the doctors refused to participate, citing ethical concerns. I'm assuming the doctors were considering their Hippocratic oath, and felt that participating in the involuntary death of another human being didn't fall within it's guidelines. Perhaps society as a whole should be held to the same standard.

Now admittedly, I have not always fallen on this side of the issue. In the past (recent past, at that), I was in favor of the death penalty. This was one of the few areas where I differed in philosophy from my fellow Democrats. But after some soul searching and critical thought, I came to the conclusion that I had been wrong all along. Anyone who knows me knows I don't easily admit being wrong. But in this case, I certainly was.

I had always argued that the death penalty was a deterrent. It's not. I had argued that by taking another life, the murderer had forfeited his own. He didn't, he only forfeited his freedom. I had complained that the accused would be taken care of for the rest of their lives at the taxpayer's expense, and this was unjust. Perhaps. But it's also the price you pay to live in a civilized society.

The death penalty is not justice, it's vengeance. Cold, calculated, pre-meditated vengeance. It does nothing to mitigate the crime. It provides no restitution to the family of the victim, or society as a whole. It simply increases the body count.

How can we as a "civilized" nation believe that it is appropriate to punish the most heinous of crimes by committing the same crime ourselves? A state sanctioned murder makes it no less a murder. Not to mention the distinct possibility that we could put innocent people to death. How do you justify that?

It has been often said: "better for one hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be imprisoned", and I agree with that. But even in the case of incarcerating an innocent person, the state can pay restitution to the person for the time they served. How do you pay restitution to a dead man?

There are people out there who say "an eye for an eye". I say, "turn the other cheek". I guess I'm just a New Testament sort of guy.

Happy Presidents Day.

Well, it's Presidents day, The day that we honor two of the great and terrible men who have served as our nation's highest elected official. I use the word "terrible" with no disrespect to the men for whom this holiday was created. It's simply the nature of the job that brought out the best, as well as the worst in these great men. They were great in their accomplishments, and their devotion to this country and the ideals upon which it was founded. They were terrible for the momentous decisions they were forced to make, and the ultimate results of those decisions. What better a day than today, Presidents day, to discuss the great and terrible failures of the current administration.

At last count, over 2200 American armed forces have died in the war in Iraq. Yet to this day, there has been no consistent explanation from this administration as to the reasons for starting this war, or the objectives that are to be attained in the prosecution of this war.

The only thing more disastrous to the Gulf Coast in recent years than Hurricane Katrina is this administration's response to it. How many are still missing? How many are still homeless? How many have yet to receive the assistance that they were promised? This is a national scandal and an outrage, and does not befit the wealthiest nation in the world.

The patriot act, the domestic spying program, the gulag at Guantanimo all represent this administration's blatant disregard for the freedoms and liberties that our nation was founded upon. Where is the justice for the prisoners being held at Guantanimo? Where is the oversight and accountability for the potential abuses of the patriot act and the domestic spying program?

George Bush walks in the footsteps of some truly great Americans. He owes it to his country to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States" in a manner befitting the remarkable men who came before him. And yet through his abdication of the very responsibilities for which he vowed to fulfill, he is nothing more than a President in title only. As such, he has yet to truly wear the mantle of the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of our great country.

Here are some quotes from Washington and Lincoln that shed some light on their greatness, and put the failures of the current administration in perspective:

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - Abraham Lincoln

As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. - George Washington

Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived. - Abraham Lincoln

How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts. - Abraham Lincoln

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. - George Washington

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure. - Abraham Lincoln

It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it. - George Washington

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. - Abraham Lincoln

My first wish is to see this plague of mankind, war, banished from the earth. - George Washington

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. - Abraham Lincoln

Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. - George Washington

Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. - George Washington

The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for future use. - Abraham Lincoln

The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments. - George Washington

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it. - Abraham Lincoln

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. - George Washington

You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today. - Abraham Lincoln


And finally, one for which President Lincoln probably had in mind someone like President Bush...

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. - Abraham Lincoln

He really had some great material. ;-)

A whole lotta bull.

Here's a subject near and dear to my heart... Dogs. I love dogs. I own dogs. I think that mankind is better and more successful as a species because of dogs. My philosophy is: "Life ain't worth living without dogs." You get the idea.

This past Tuesday, at the Westminster Kennel Club dog show in New York, a Colored Bull Terrier named Rufus won best in show. Rufus seems to be one of those dogs who always has a smile on his face, and when you see him, you've just got to smile yourself. The dog lovers in the crowd know what I'm talking about.

What does this have to do with price of rice in China? Well CNN just ran a story to the effect that Rufus, because of his "looks" would be put down in certain communities. Not because of anything he's done, just because he has "that look." Many communities in the country have what are commonly referred to as BSL's or "Breed Specific Laws" that restrict the breeding and ownership of certain breeds of dogs, which are often directed at "pit bulls" or "pit bull like" dogs. Never mind the fact that the AKC, which I would consider to be the undisputed expert on the subject, doesn't even recognize a breed called "Pit Bull" or "American Pit Bull".

Now, I've been around dogs all my life. I've known some wonderful, and some not so wonderful canines. And in my experience, there is no such thing as a bad breed or breed type, only bad breeders and bad owners. Have "pit bull" type dogs attacked people, including children, in the past? Absolutely. Are they a bad breed type as a whole? Absolutely not. If we look at the statistics, there are more biting incidents with Labrador Retrievers than any other breed of dogs. Yet I don't hear anyone screaming to outlaw labs. Why? Because most people think of Labradors as friendly, playful, family oriented dogs. You hear the phrase "a boy and his dog", and the image of a lab or Golden Retriever comes to many people's minds.

However, the image of "pit bull" type dogs is that of a viscous, ferocious animal bent on attacking people and fighting other dogs. In certain circles, a "pit bull" is a status symbol. Having one makes you bad, makes you a tough guy. And those who like that impression tend to encourage their dogs to fight and be aggressive. Does this make the breed type bad? No. It just shows the idiocy of these macho knuckleheads who think they have a weapon, rather than a pet. And as a result, breed types like "pit bulls", Dobermans, and Rottweilers get a bad rap.

Instead of punishing a group of innocent animals, perhaps we should start implementing and enforcing laws outlawing irresponsible pet ownership. Just a thought.

Here's a great piece on executive power...

Check it out.

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/LimitsofPresidentialPower.html

Because I said so, that's why.

Works for parents. Has for eons. In fact, I have to admit I've used the line myself. However, we're not talking about dealing with children here. We're talking about the blatant disregard for the rule of law by a regime that has repeatedly preached "we're a nation of laws". Put your money where your hypocrisy is, Mr. Bush.

It seems every time the administration gets their hands caught in the cookie jar, the standard answer is: "I signed an executive order, and that makes it OK". Not so, mon capitain. Executive orders have limitations. Executive orders DO NOT trump the Constitution. Presidents in the past have found that out, and so will this one.

I bring this up in the wake of V.P. Dick Cheney's too little, too late interview from yesterday on Fox News. In the interview, Mr. Cheney responded to a question regarding his authority to declassify information. Cheney stated "There is an executive order to that effect." Well, not exactly Mr. Vice President. I'm assuming he is referring to either executive order 12958, issued by President Clinton, or executive order 13292, issued by President Bush (dumbya), which amends 12958. In either case, declassification requires a review process, and the agency or individual who originated the classification must be consulted. So the V.P. cannot arbitrarily declassify something without following the established process. You might actually try reading the executive order Mr. Cheney.

Maybe I'm alone here, but it sure seems to me that this administration feels that it can rule by decree. That anything that pops into the head of POTUS or VPOTUS can be made law just by turning it into an executive order. I don't think so sparky. The Constitution makes a clear distinction who has the legislative authority in this country.

What I don't get is why Bush & Co. don't go to Congress to get any law they want passed. I mean really, the Republicans own both houses, and unless something has recently changed, none of them have grown a pair, so it's unlikely they'd stand up to Bush. So really, why not go to Congress and have them just coronate you emperor of the world?

That way, if some poor dumb schmuck like me, or some impertinent reporter has the audacity to ask you "Why?", you can simply say "Because I said so, that's why."

Shooting ourselves in the foot once more.

Yesterday was a bad day for the Ohio Democratic party, and democracy as a whole. Paul Hackett, an Iraqi war vet and candidate for Senate has decided to hang 'em up. He has sited "repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind the scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign." It appears that the party, both within and without the state, has decided to back another horse, Congressman Sherrod Brown of Ohio's 13th district.

Now, I have nothing against Sherrod Brown. He has been a dedicated servant to his constituents and seems to be an honorable man. My beef is with the state and national Democratic party. Paul Hackett has thus far run a clean, competent, issues-based campaign, and seemed to be gaining momentum. In a recent poll of contenders for the Senate seat he is running for, he polled ahead of all his Democratic competition, including Sherrod Brown. Hackett appears to be a man committed to furthering honest debate, and addressing the culture of special interests and corruption that exists in government today.

Here are some quotes from Mr. Hackett:

"The culture of corruption that pervades Washington is only a symptom of a larger problem. Career politicians who value the extension of their career over what’s best for their constituents have left the American people out in the cold time and again."

"Corporations shouldn’t be getting tax cuts for sending good jobs overseas. The economic policy of the United States should reflect the values we share as a society. Let’s help small businesses with incentives and less red-tape. Let’s look out for the elderly, our children and the poor. We have the largest economy in the world… let’s start using it for the people who have worked to create it."

"Our environmental policies must be grounded in sound science with significant investments in future technologies. I’m committed to the development of clean, renewable and affordable energy because it doesn’t just benefit the environment it helps to grow the economy and to create new jobs."

Honestly, how can you not like this guy? But the Democratic party has decided to put "business as usual" ahead of progress within their party, and within our country. I guess they feel it's better to put forward a candidate that is established and predictable over someone they don't control.

My problem here is: how can we complain about cronyism in the Bush administration when we appear to be practicing it within our own party. As I said, Sherrod Brown is a good man, but Paul Hackett is a fresh face and a progressive thinker, something that is sadly lacking in the Democratic party and in politics in general.

The saddest part about all this is that Mr. Hackett has announced that this is the end of his political career. He has stated "I will not be running in the Second Congressional District nor for any other elective office. This decision is final, and not subject to reconsideration. " So basically, the power brokers within the Democratic party have turned this guy off to the idea of elected office. Great job guys, great job. It's no wonder we can't seem to take control of Congress and the Senate... we're too busy trying to maintain the status quo, the culture of mediocrity, to concentrate on re-invigorating the party and advancing the national debate.

It’s to the point where I'm seriously considering advocating voting ALL incumbents out and starting over.

Happy Valentine's Day, My Love

I know I don't tell you often enough, how much you mean to me.

So I thought I'd post it to my blog, for all the world to see.

For all you do, for all you are, my love for you abounds.

I love waking next to you every day, as corny as that sounds.

You make my life so wonderful, you make my world complete.

You give purpose and meaning to my days, and make my nights so sweet.

There is so much more I feel for you, so much that I could say.

But for now, 'til you're in my arms, have a Happy Valentine's Day.

I love you baby.

It’s the fox guarding the hen house… Again.

It seems there are no repercussions for being indicted in D.C. politics. For our old friend, Rep. Tom DeLay, it’s business as usual. While DeLay has been indicted on charges of conspiracy and money laundering in Texas, it appears this in no way affects his status within the Republican leadership.

In fact, Mr. DeLay has some new, important positions within the structure of Republican politics. Delay has now been made a member of the House Appropriations committee, as well as the sub-committee that oversees the Justice Department.

So, let’s see if I’ve got this right… A man who has been indicted on charges of conspiracy and money laundering, and is closely tied to an admittedly corrupt lobbyist, is now on the committee that writes the checks for Congress, as well as the one that oversees the department that will likely be investigating him. Okay. Makes perfect sense to me.

Unless the Republicans in this country want their party to forever be synonymous with corruption, incompetence, and scandal, they need to do something NOW to wrestle their party back from the power-drunk zealots who are currently in charge. I’m a tried and true liberal and a registered Democrat, but I can’t help but mourn at what appears to me to be the final downfall of the noble party of Lincoln. I may not agree with the Republicans, but I’ve always tried to respect them. And it’s sad to see that this party’s leadership is willing to strip all semblance of respectability just to try to maintain their fragile grip on power in this country.

Straight shooters? Apparently not.

Looks like the veep had a bad weekend.

Information came out late last week that didn’t bode well for Dick. Apparently, “Scooter” Libby’s testimony has implicated Vice President Dick Cheney in the scandal surrounding the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity. And just when the top Dick in the administration thought things couldn’t get any worse, he shoots one of his hunting buddies in the face and chest.

Honestly Mr. Cheney, couldn’t you just tell the guy to go f*ck himself? Did you have to shoot him? Good thing you were more careful when you were duck hunting with Justice Scalia. Otherwise, we might have another member of the “Concerned Alumni of Princeton” (or worse) on the Supreme Court.

Some pundits on the right have said in the past that Dick Cheney was a “straight shooter.” All evidence to the contrary. Really, you should stick to light sabers Lord Vader. At least until they take the training wheels off your 28 gauge.

These guys are turning incompetence into an art form.

Seriously though... I'm really curious what the laws are in Texas regarding accidental shootings. Isn't there some ordinance about being negligent with a firearm? And if so, does anyone think that this law will be applied to the Vice President? Don't hold your breath.

Another question that begs to be asked... Exactly when was the V.P. going to come forward and fess up to this incident. Early indications are that this was being kept quiet, until, alas, someone in the media started asking questions.

Mr. Cheney's hunting pal is a an Austin, TX attorney, a prominent Republican, and a contributor to both the Bush-Cheney campaigns. I'm betting he's not going to sue the veep over this. But let me ask this: Would you or I be as lucky if we accidently shot this man while hunting? I think not.
Not unless we were members of the good ol' boys, straight-shooter network.

Squeal like a fascist pig, you...you...fascist pig!

Well folks, it looks like the henchmen are starting to sing. Former FEMA chief Michael Brown is scheduled to testify today before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee. He has communicated to the White House (through his attorney) that "unless there is specific direction otherwise by the President", he will basically answer all questions posed to him truthfully and completely. What a novel concept! Actually providing truthful, accurate information. Gee, maybe this will start a trend.

Now we find out that "Scooter" Libby was "authorized to disclose information about the National Intelligence Estimate to the press by his superiors." Apparently, Mr. Libby didn't specify who these mysterious "superiors" were. Let's see... he's the chief of staff to the Vice President, and we look at the organizational chart... Well, what do you know... he reports directly to the Vice President, and the Vice President reports directly to the President. And he did use the word "superiors", plural, so at least two "superiors" were involved. You do the math. In this case, one plus one equals IMPEACHMENT, n'est pas?

President Bush is quoted as saying the following regarding this case: "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of." Gee Mr. President, does that apply to you as well? And if so, what exactly does "taken care of" mean? In President Bush's case, if he is found to be complicit in this scandal, or any of the others brewing around him, it means IMPEACHMENT.

Now obviously I'm speculating here. After all, Mr. Libby has been indicted and charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, but has not yet been convicted. So the jury is still out on the matter (pardon the pun). But, in the grand scheme of things, it's just a matter of time for this administration. The house of cards is starting to collapse, the first dominos are starting to fall. If there is justice in this country of ours, and deep down, I believe there still is; this administration will fall. And they will have no one to blame but themselves. They chose to act the way they did. They chose to ignore their Constitutional duties. And they need to be held accountable.

And to my conservative friends out there... Just to set the record straight... I take no pleasure in seeing the downfall of an American administration. It doesn't matter whether it's a Republican or Democratic administration, it's an American administration, and I take that seriously and very personally. This is my country too, not just yours. We don't live in the Conservative States of America, or the Liberal States of America. We live in the United States of America. And John Donne's words from the 1600's are no less true today: "never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." This is true for all people, and it is also true for our country.

Oh, and by the way, for those who may be offended by my fascist reference in the title of this post... I submit to you: If it looks like a fascist, sounds like a fascist, and smells like a fascist...
Again, you do the math.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

Why? Because the Bush administration says so, that's why. After all, we can't control you sheep as easily unless we play the fear card.

It appears that Bush & company have started a new campaign to use fear as a tool to get us to look the other way. Recognize it for what it is... smoke & mirrors. Perhaps they feel that if we're scared, we're less likely to question assaults on the constitution. Like, perhaps the domestic spying program?

The president has suddenly decided to provide details about a terror plot that was apparently thwarted back in 2002 involving crashing a plane into a Los Angeles skyscraper. Why it is that the president has waited nearly 4 years to reveal details about this plot is a mystery. Isn't it interesting though, that this comes at a time when the administration is trying to justify a questionable domestic spying program that they've defended on national security grounds.

Last night, a senate office building was evacuated due to a false alarm for a nerve agent. Does this remind you of the events surrounding the anthrax attacks of 2001? Good. I'm betting it's supposed to. Am I sounding too much like a conspiracy theorist? Perhaps. Of course, don't rule out the possibility that there really IS a conspiracy here. That the timing of these events is not pure coincidence.

After all, we're talking about an administration that pays "journalists" for positive articles in the Iraqi press. A regime that uses mob-like tactics to quell dissent within it's party's ranks. A gang of ideologues that feels the Constitution is simply an obstacle to get around.

George Orwell would be proud.

The Rove Shakedown

Well, it turns out that the Bush administration doesn't feel it has tight enough control of Republican legislators in this country. They have now decided to employ strong-arm tactics to make sure that everyone on their side of the aisle stays in line.

"Insight on the News", sister entity of the uber-conservative "Washington Times", is reporting that Karl Rove has been dispatched to capitol hill to shake down Republican senators on the judiciary committee. That's right, a conservative rag is actually advertising this type of activity on the part of this administration. Apparently any veil or illusion of propriety on the part of the Bush White House is no longer necessary.

Here's the article:

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Rove2.htm

Mr. Rove is telling senators on the committee that if they vote against the president during their investigation of his domestic spying program, the senators will be "blacklisted". What does blacklisting mean, in this instance? It means that the administration will not politically or financially support the senator when he or she runs for re-election come November. (Given the president's current poll numbers, that may not be a bad thing)

Now here's what I want to know: How is it that this type of activity on the part of Karl Rove and the Bush administration does not constitute obstruction of justice?? How does it not constitute a breach of the separation of powers?? Here you have an on-going investigation on the part of the legislative branch of the federal government about possible illegal activity on the part of the executive branch. Now agents of the executive branch are trying to use coercion to guarantee a positive outcome of this investigation. Can someone please tell me why this is not illegal??!!!

Wouldn't this be the same as a defendant in a criminal trial hiring thugs to intimidate the jury trying his case? What makes these tactics any different than those employed by organized crime in this country? What makes the Bush "family" (Rove, Cheney, Gonzalez, etc.) any different than the Gambino crime family?

If I were Arlen Specter, and Rove walked into my office to twist my arm regarding the outcome of an on-going investigation, I'd make sure he left my office in handcuffs. But that's just me.

When are the true patriots in the Republican party going to wake up and help take back our country from an administration that is willing to shred the constitution every time it gets in the way of their agenda? Isn't it their patriotic duty to do so? Weren't they also sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States"?

I point this out for a reason. Nowhere in the oath of office for President, Senator, or Congressman does it say they are sworn to defend a party, an ideology, or another elected official. There primary affirmation in their oath is to support and defend THE CONSTITUTION. What part of this don't our elected officials in Washington understand?

And our responsibility as citizens is to hold them accountable, to make sure they make good on that oath. Consider that when you cast your votes in the upcoming elections in November, as well as any other future elections. It's our country, and they are our representatives. Ask yourself when you go to the polls: "Have they really been representing my best interests, or their own?"

What happened to you, Senator McCain?

I'm baffled. I'm truly baffled. Sen. John McCain of Arizona had, in the past, been the consistent voice of reason and restraint within a party that typically doesn't comprehend either of those concepts. Yet these days, he seems to be doing nothing more than going through the motions, toeing the part line, and supporting policies and practices that are considered indefensible and even criminal by many Americans.

Case in point... Mr. McCain decided to fire off a nastygram to Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois questioning the sincerity of his efforts to push for true reform regarding Congressional ethics when dealing with lobbyists. Mr. McCain stated: "I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics, I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble," ... "I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's efforts to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness." How civil of you, Senator McCain.

Apparently, Sen. McCain's beef is over the fact that while he had suggested putting together a bipartisan task force to TALK about the issue, Sen. Obama actually wanted to DO something about it. You see, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada has put together a bill (S.2180) to address some of the ethics issues and corruption that exists in the current system; and Sen. Obama has decided to support it. So I guess Mr. McCain is either ticked that he didn't come out with something first, or that someone is actually proposing legislation that really addresses the issue.

You see, I've actually read the bill, something I would like to think Sen. McCain has done. Now, I'm no lawyer, but it sure looks to me like this is legislation that actually has some real teeth to it. You want to take a prohibited jaunt to Scotland to play some golf with your lobbyist friends? That'll be $100,000 in fines, please. You want to do it again? How 'bout $300,000. A third trip? Try $500,000. Oh, and by the way, how does 10 years in prison grab you? The bill also has extensive provisions for adding transparency to the system, and making information on lobbyists, their activities, and their relationship with our legislators a matter of public record.

So I ask the question... Is Mr. McCain really just upset about Mr. Obama's "self-interested partisan posturing" and "earlier disingenuousness", or is he simply worried that he might get his hand caught in the cookie jar if this bill becomes the law of the land? Honestly Mr. McCain, if you were so interested in bipartisanship on this issue, you might want to consider actually adding your name to the bill. Or is true reform out of the realm of possibility for members of the republican party?

Don't mess around with Mohammad

The recent outrage in the Islamic world over the publishing of cartoons depicting Mohammad in, shall we say, an unfavorable light; has caused some people to suggest that fundamental Islam is opposed to freedom of speech.

I beg to differ.

Apparently, as far as the fundamentalist Islamic world is concerned, you CAN have freedom of speech, as long as:

A. You are male, of the faith, and think like everyone else.
B. You are female, of the faith, think like everyone else, and don't actually speak.
C. You advocate violence against America or any other "infidels" (as determined by your local Islamic Cleric, Hamas, or Al-Qaida).
D. You advocate the teachings of the Koran (as interpreted by your local Islamic Cleric, Hamas, or Al-Qaida).
E. You are willing to commit suicide for your beliefs (please consult your local Islamic Cleric, Hamas, or Al-Qaida to determine what your beliefs should be).

Violators of these tenets shall be kidnapped, bombed, have their flags or effigies burned, etc.

Having seen the recent success of fundamental Islam in the Arab world, the Bush administration has decided to adopt a similar approach...

The first amendment shall be honored, provided:

A. You are male, of the faith, of the party, think like everyone else, and use the administration talking points whenever possible.
B. You are female, of the faith, of the party, think like everyone else, don't claim ownership of your own body, and don't actually speak. (only approved t-shirts, please)
C. You advocate surveillance against all enemies, foreign, domestic, and imaginary (as determined by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and all their cronies).
D. You advocate the teachings of the King James Bible (as interpreted George Bush, Dick Cheney, and all their cronies).
E. You are willing to kill, injure, or imprison others for your beliefs (please consult George Bush, Dick Cheney, and all their cronies to determine what your beliefs should be).

Violators of these tenets shall be smeared, labeled unpatriotic, and if worse comes to worse, their wife's CIA cover will be blown in the media.

Seriously though...

I agree that the current manifestation of fundamental Islam is a true threat to our national security, as well as that of the rest of the world. However, how can we espouse such an objection to this ideology and it's practices and not appear as hypocrites to the rest of the world when we practice similar totalitarian abuses in our own society??

I mean really, how can one justify hauling someone off to jail for simply wearing a t-shirt that the current party in power objects to? If we truly live in a free society, then the first amendment CANNOT be suspended while in the House gallery. If anything, that is where this fundamental right should be most celebrated.

How can our president preach about spreading freedom and liberty around the world when his administration seeks to quell it here at home?

When we established the Department of Homeland Security, we should have also created the Civil Liberties Protection Agency. How else can we "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" if we do not have checks in place to reign in the obscene power grabbing of this administration.

What I really want to know... How is it that the entire legislative branch of our government seems resigned to allowing this administration to make them irrelevant?! You would think that there are some truly ambitious members of both houses who like the idea of having some authority in the structure of our government. Yet I see no real outrage, no attempts to check the authority of the current regime. Perhaps the new "terrorist surveillance program" has been used to gain some leverage over any dissenting voices within, as well as without this government.

Those of you out there who aren't disturbed, who aren't afraid, who aren't downright livid about what is going on in this country... you'd better check to see if you still have a pulse.

Opening Rant

It's time. I've waited long enough, it's time. It's time I quit stewing about the injustices of this insane world we live in, and start screaming about it from the rooftops. It's time I quit whining to my wife about what's wrong with our country and started telling a few thousand strangers what I think. It's time to apply a novel concept to our national debate - the truth. It's time that we scutinized the current administration and their ilk under the magnifying glass known as REALITY.

Do I sound like I'm full of myself & just like to hear the sound of my own voice? Good.

The conservative blowhards and pompous talking heads have had their chance. Now it's my turn.