Friday, March 31, 2006

Congressman Steve King: Douchebag for America!

Just give Congressman King tights and a cape, and he’d be the perfect “Conservative American Hero”. Rep. King (R), who “represents” Iowa’s 5th district, is quite the outspoken champion for “American Values.” And someday, when he gets his foot surgically removed from his mouth, perhaps he can explain to everybody what those values are, and what planet he is living on.

In a recent press conference over the debate currently raging on illegal immigration, Rep. King blamed the problem on the “ruling elite” of our country:

"The elite class in America is becoming a ruling class and they've made enough money by hiring cheap illegal labor that they think they also have some kind of a right to cheap servants to manicure their nails and their lawn, for example.

"So this ruling class, this new ruling class of America, is expanding a servant class in America at the expense of the middle class of America, the blue collar of America that used to be able to punch a time clock, buy a modest house and raise their families. ... Those young people are cut out of this process."

Have you recently checked out the inhabitants of the White House Congressman King? How ‘bout the Senate or House chambers? Perhaps the Supreme Court? The ruling “class” in this country isn’t a class, it’s a party. The REPUBLICAN party. And you are the ones who seem to always be saying to us peasants, “let them eat cake.” N’est pas?

The Congressman further stated:

"Anybody that votes for an amnesty bill deserves to be branded with a scarlet letter 'A,'”

I’ve got a better idea Congressman. Let’s tattoo “Jackass” on your forehead.

You know who first suggested amnesty for illegal immigrants Congressman? Your beloved President Ronald Reagan. Wanna brand his corpse with a scarlet “A”?

Of course the Congressman has a long and distinguished history of diarrhea of the mouth. Back in September of last year, the Congressman stood on the floor of the house and urged the Congress not to name a post office in Berkeley, CA. in honor of woman who he had never met – public servant, civil rights leader and peace activist Maudelle Shirek.

Ms. Shirek, who served eight terms as a council member in Berkeley, was characterized by Rep. King, as “apart from, I will say, the most consistent of American values”. Rep. King also falsely accused Ms. Shirek of being a communist.

California Rep. Barbara Lee, who nominated Shirek for the honor said that King and others who voted against the naming of the post office were: "living in the days, I guess, of Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover and decided they wanted to defeat a local district matter, and I think it's outrageous and unconscionable." Rep. Lee called Shirek "a woman whose leadership, service and commitment to our community are a testament to what is great about our nation."

King, true to form, defended one of his heroes: "If Barbara Lee would read the history of Joe McCarthy she would realize that he was a hero for America." Hoover, he said, "was a giant when it came to law enforcement."

Well Congressman King, you too are a hero. You are a hero to the multitudes of narrow-minded neocons who seem hell-bent on destroying our country in the name of “saving” it. And you too are a giant. A giant, ignorant, neolithic jackass.

Where’s the beef?

I was in a discussion recently regarding suggestions that have been made in the past, and are likely to be made in the future, about a Constitutional amendment to ban the burning of the U.S. flag. One very insightful comment that was made during the discussion was:

“A flag burning amendment is a politician’s wet dream. They don't have to actually fix any of the real problems we have in this country like the national debt, education, rebuilding New Orleans, healthcare, social security, what in the world we are going to do in Iraq, etc.. It is a completely empty gesture, like ‘Freedom Fries.’”

And it got me to thinking… Doesn’t that pretty much describe Republican/conservative politics in this country?

The fact is, when you're talking about the likes of George Bush, Bill Frist, Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc. etc. etc., you're talking about the masters of window dressing. The basic philosophy is: drive wedges, be divisive, wave the flag, talk tough, preach "values", wear your "patriotism" on your sleeve, wear your "Christianity" on your sleeve, ooze self righteousness, and DO NOTHING.

The concept of actually solving problems is foreign to them.

Ask a liberal and a conservative why they want to hold public office, and you'll get two different answers, along these lines...

Liberal: "I want to make a difference." Translation - I want to help solve people's problems.

Conservative: "I want to serve my country." Translation - I want to hold public office.

To those neocons out there who think I'm fulla crap, I have one question for you: "Where's the beef?" Show me one example of something substantive that the conservatives have contributed to our country recently. Something they've offered up that ACTUALLY SOLVES PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS.

Show me. I dare you. I double-dog dare you.

Where is the substance that backs up your self-righteous posturing?

Yep, that pretty much describes the right wing in this country. Getting elected for the sake of getting elected, and holding power at all costs. Even when it's our country that pays the price.

Yep. It’s O.K. to shred the Constitution, but don’t you dare burn that flag!

Thursday, March 30, 2006

The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006. What a joke.

There's transparency all right. It's pretty clear that this was simply an effort to pay lip service to the issue, without making any real changes or providing any disincentives for violating the rules. And accountability?? The proposed bill makes the pay-to-play culture of Congress "out of order". It doesn't provide any actual teeth when it comes to holding Senators and lobbyists accountable for their indiscretions. I want to remind people that there was a proposed bill for true legislative reform, which had some real teeth to it. It was proposed by Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada (S.2180), and I talked about it in my post on February 7th of this year.

The new bill, S.2349, sponsored by Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, passed the Senate yesterday in a 90 to 8 vote, This bill is really nothing more than a whitewash over the serious problem of corruption within the Legislative AND Executive branches of our government. The fact is, the elected "Representatives" of the American people aren't representing the people of America. They are representing the lobbyists and special interests who are more than happy to provide perks, and in many cases, line the pockets of our legislators. And the proof of that is in yesterday's vote on this bill. Out of 100 "Representatives" of the American people, only 8 were willing to show the courage of their convictions. Thank you Senators Coburn, DeMint, Feingold, Graham, Inhofe, Kerry, McCain, and Obama. You demonstrated yesterday that perhaps, just perhaps, there is still a small amount of integrity within the Senate chamber.

Of course I may be giving these guys too much credit. Take a look at the Senators I just listed. How many of them are likely candidates for the White House in 2008? At least half I'd say. Coincidence? I wonder. How many of these guys are going to go on the record saying, "Well I voted against that bill, and that's why you can trust me to not be bought by the special interests." Trust is something that should be earned. Show us, don't tell us.

I'm so looking forward to more earth-shattering legislation from this Congress of ours. Maybe the "Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2006", where they triple the national debt, or perhaps the "Election Integrity Act of 2006", where Corporate America and the media decide who gets elected, or even the "Citizen's Rights Act of 2006", where they abolish the Bill of Rights.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

President Carter, the voice of reason once again.

Former President Carter has an Op/Ed piece in the Washington Post regarding our recent nuclear deal with India. I wouldn't presume to editorialize President Carter's piece here. As always, his work speaks for itself. Here's the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801210.html?nav=mb

"Conservative Christian" is an oxymoron…

WARNING: Followers of Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, “Reverend” Fred Phelps, and their ilk should stop reading now. You will undoubtedly be offended by my sinful, evil, heretical, blasphemous assault on your “noble” agenda. By the way, why in heaven’s name are you idiots reading my blog anyway??

As for others who consider themselves “Conservative Christians”, you’re likely to be offended by this post as well. Good. Read on. You need to hear this.

I am sick and tired on the so-called “Conservative Christians” in this country copping this “holier than thou” attitude about everything, while simultaneously espousing beliefs that couldn’t be further from Christianity. Let’s get straight to the heart of the matter. Christ believed in tolerance, not intolerance. He believed in inclusion, not exclusion. He believed in mercy, not vengeance. He believed in love, not hate. And here’s a news flash: Christ was a liberal, even a radical. He certainly was NOT a conservative. Not on his worst day.

I can hear it now… The Con. Christians saying to themselves “I’m tolerant, I’m inclusive, I love my fellow man”. Yeah, right. Keep telling yourselves that. Now for those of you in this group who DO have an open mind, let me suggest this… You wanna be a good Christian? Then act like it. Walk the walk, don’t just talk the talk. Saying you are a Christian isn’t good enough. Having a “WWJD” bumper sticker doesn’t cut it. If you’re going to call yourself a Christian, how ‘bout following some of Christ’s teachings?

Regarding Gay Rights… “But the Bible says…” The Bible says a lot of things. The Bible says I can sell my children into slavery. I’m certainly not going to do that anytime soon. Jesus said: “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” And “Whatever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, that you do to Me.” So, would you like to be persecuted? Did you like the fact that Jesus was persecuted for what he believed? Because that is exactly what some so-called “Conservative Christians” are doing to gays and lesbians in this country. Do you honestly believe that Jesus would have had a problem with two people who love each other, sharing their lives together as partners, or this same loving couple adopting a child? Think very carefully before you answer that.

How about the death penalty? Try this one on for size: "Let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Don’t like that one? How ‘bout: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy”. No? Okay, what about: “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” ‘Nuff said.

And that “love thy neighbor” thing? Well, let’s just put it this way… Dropping bombs on them isn’t exactly the best way to show it. Nope, I’m afraid being a Christian might actually require HONESTLY asking yourself: “What would Jesus Do?”

And for those rapture-righties who still think I’m full of crap, I’ve got a new bumper sticker for ya:

Conservative Christians: We’re taking the “Christ” out of Christianity.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Bring us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses… ‘cause Corporate America needs cheap labor.

Illegal immigration. Everybody agrees that it is a problem; nobody seems to agree on a solution. Some have suggested a “guest worker” program, some have suggested amnesty, and some have suggested sending illegals back. However, there seems to be no consensus on the subject. This issue is not new, although you’d think, based on their recent interest, that Congress just discovered there was a problem. As usual, our leaders are late coming to the table.

Corporate America of course, would just like the issue to be swept back under the rug, so they can go back to business as usual. After all, how can they make record profits if they have to pay workers a decent wage and provide them with benefits? The workers are happy, because they earn in a day what they used to earn in a month south of the border. The CEOs and CFOs are happy, because they make those record profits, and get their big performance bonuses. And now the Congress is happy, because they have an issue that plays well in the media in advance of the mid-term elections, making them look “tough” on homeland security. Never mind the fact that both sides of the aisle have effectively ignored this issue for decades.

So who’s not happy? Middle class America, that’s who. Because, as always, no matter what ridiculous “solution” Congress comes up with, it’s likely the middle class that will get screwed. If we adopt a guest worker program, the incentive continues for Corporate America to pay slave wages and no benefits to non-citizens, while simultaneously eliminating higher-paid U.S. workers. If we offer amnesty, again, the incentive continues for corporations, but this time, we’ve added a big welcome sign at the border for other illegals to enter the country. And if we “ship ‘em all back”, as some have suggested, we take on the truly insurmountable task of rounding up 10-15 million illegal immigrants, and sending them back home (kicking and screaming, no doubt), at the expense of, you guessed it, the middle class.

Don’t misunderstand me here; I don’t blame the illegal immigrants for entering our country. We’ve all but invited them in, and I too would jump at the chance of providing a better life for myself and my family in the proverbial land of milk & honey. My beef is with the foot-draggers in Washington who act like they just woke up yesterday to discover we have a problem with illegal immigration. This is a problem that has gone on for multiple generations!! It would have been hard enough to deal with when we had 1 million undocumented aliens in this country. But to wait until we have between 10 and 15 million illegals in our country (depending on whose numbers you believe), and to politicize the sh*t out of the issue… it’s more than irresponsible, it’s criminal.

I’ve got an idea… let’s build a big wall across the entire southern border of the country, and then ship Congress back to Mexico. That way, everybody will be happy.

Monday, March 27, 2006

Be careful what you say…and what you hear…and what you write…and what you read.

You just never know who might be watching and listening. Chances are, someone located at “Crypto City” in Fort Meade, Maryland might just be paying attention. Fort Meade is the location of NSA (National Security Agency) headquarters, a huge, hidden complex of over fifty buildings midway between D.C. and Baltimore. An estimated 38,000 people work for this super-secret signal intelligence agency, made infamous (most recently) by President Bush’s domestic spying (oops, I meant Terrorist Surveillance) program. The NSA was at one time so secretive, that insiders used to joke that NSA stood for “No Such Agency”.

President Truman established the NSA in 1952, under total secrecy. The idea was to have all signal intelligence centralized into one agency. Only a few members of Congress knew of it’s existence, and no one outside this new agency really knew what they were doing. Not much has changed in 54 years. While the government no longer denies that such an agency exists, nobody outside the walls of “Crypto City” really knows what this agency is up to. This month’s issue of “The Atlantic” magazine has an excellent article on the NSA. I highly recommend reading it. (If anyone wants the article e-mailed to them, let me know.)

What it boils down to is that we are reaching a point where the NSA can intercept EVERY SINGLE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION into, out of, and within the U.S., and much of the rest of the world. In recent years, and with the advent of modern communication technology, the NSA’s ability to gather signal intelligence has exploded. And the NSA has not developed this incredible capability on its own. They’ve had help. Many of the telecommunications companies have been complicit in the effort to make sure that Big Brother hears, sees, and knows everything. Local calls, long distance calls, international calls, cellular calls, e-mails, faxes, you name it. If it goes through a wire, or via satellite, or via fiber optic line, chances are, the NSA can intercept it.

Many people will not be surprised by this, myself included. Many will say, “it’s no big deal, I’ve got nothing to hide.” And while that may be true, it’s no reason not to be concerned. People have been placed on watch lists because they’ve done legitimate business with entities that the government “suspects” are illegitimate. People have been red flagged because they’ve made the mistake of using the wrong combination of words in an innocent e-mail. As a matter of fact, I’m willing to bet that this blog will get a hit from Fort Meade or Langley because I had the audacity to use the words “Fort Meade”, “Terrorist”, “exploded”, and “NSA” in the same post.

Now don’t get me wrong. I do believe that the U.S. intelligence community should have the capability to protect U.S. interests through the use of signal intelligence. And like many others who have had generous doses of Ian Fleming, Robert Ludlum and the like over the years, there’s a certain part of me that thinks this stuff is just “too cool.” But the fact remains that the system of oversight that was set up in the mid-seventies, in the wake of Watergate, is simply broken. It is broken by an Executive Branch that doesn’t feel that the laws apply to them. It is broken by the effective abdication of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, whose job it is to rein in the abuses and over-reaching by this, and other intelligence agencies. And as long as that system is broken, a “free society” as we know it, is in serious jeopardy.

The “Church Committee”, set up in the mid-seventies by Idaho Dem. Sen. Frank Church, investigated some of the abuses by the NSA, as well as the Nixon White House. Church’s panel was responsible for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and the establishment of the FISA court, which rules on any warrant requests by the NSA and other intelligence agencies. The work of this committee has really been the only serious scrutiny of the past, and potential future abuses, of this secretive agency.

In 1975, Sen. Church made a very prophetic statement regarding the future advancement of the NSA’s technology. He said the NSA’s capabilities “could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such [is] the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it is done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capacity of this technology.” Church further commented: “I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge… I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that [the National Security Agency] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

It’s almost as if Sen. Church read Pres. Bush’s script, over thirty years ago. Too bad nobody in Congress really heeded his warning. So do be careful about what you say, and hear, and write, and read. As for what you think… I’m sure they’re working on that one too.

Friday, March 24, 2006

The Unitary Executive

For those of you who may not be familiar with the term, the "unitary executive" is a concept championed by members of both the Federalist Society, and the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. In short, the idea is that all executive authority in the government is centralized to the President, and the Executive branch has the authority, at its discretion, to bypass the checks and balances of the other two branches of government. Those who promote this theory also suggest that the Executive has the authority, indeed the duty, to interpret the laws and the Constitution, not to just execute and enforce them. The power to interpret laws is traditionally believed to be the exclusive right of the Judicial branch.

No President has been more active in exercising the doctrine of the unitary executive than George W. Bush. And his favorite weapon in his unitary war on the Constitution: the "signing statement." Signing statements have been used by Presidents since Monroe to offer their take, their interpretation, of the legislation that they sign into law. And these signing statements HAVE been considered by the courts in ruling on past cases involving the legislation that the President signed.

From President Monroe through President Clinton, the Executive branch had issued 332 such signing statements. President George W. Bush? He has used 435 of these statements in his first term alone! Now I know why he doesn't veto anything. He simply issues a signing statement that the law doesn't apply to him. Must be nice to be above the law.

Unfortunately, these signing statements have not gotten the media attention they deserve (surprise, surprise). There was a bit of a media stink at the time of the President signing the McCain law supposedly banning torture. Legal scholars suggested at the time that in effect, the President reserved the right to use torture when he deemed it necessary. That is not the only disturbing part of his signing statement. In the same section on the statement, Bush in effect strips detainees of the right to avail themselves of due process, and SPECIFICALLY DECLARES THAT THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION over matters related to the detainees. In effect, the President has now decided to dictate limitations on the other branches of the government. Here's the section:

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005."

This is scary stuff. And as I said, the media doesn't seem to be paying any attention to it. Fortunately, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) VT. has been paying attention, and the Boston Globe did a story today on Bush's most recent signing statement, his interpretation of the "Patriot Act." Here's the story (you may have to register to read):

Boston Globe article.

In this most recent decree from King George, the prez has decided that he doesn't have to adhere to the oversight requirements of the law, and he doesn't need to inform Congress on how the powers of this law are being used by the administration. Here's his signing statement on the renewal of the "Patriot Act"

"Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005," and then S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006." The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives.

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient."

He sure likes the phrase "unitary executive branch". He should. His administration's "interpretation" of our Constitution would, taken to its extreme, allow for an all-powerful Executive branch with no Congressional oversight, no Judicial interpretation, and no checks whatsoever on the authority of the President. He cites the "limitations on the judicial power", yet recognizes no limit on his own.

Forget Iraq. Forget Plamegate. Forget Katrina. Forget the NSA spying program. This President MUST be impeached, if for no other reason than to insure the sanctity of our very form of government, and the preservation of the rule of law, the rights of the people, and the Constitution itself. Make no mistake folks. If this President's thirst for power continues to go unchecked, then government of the people, by the people, and for the people WILL perish from this earth.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Decisions, decisions, decisions...

You wanna know what the toughest part of writing my blog is? Choosing what to write about. I mean, amid all the corruption, all the injustice, all the back-door dealing, all the hypocrisy, all the crap that defines our crazy world, and the even crazier country we live in, how does one choose? There is always so much crap that I could write about every single day.

Take today, for example. Do I write about the Afghan citizen who faces the death penalty for converting to Christianity? Or how about the administration’s use of millions of tax dollars to fund “Faith-based” anti-abortion work? Or maybe I should write about the “rescue” of three western hostages in Iraq. Or perhaps I’ll discuss the Pentagon’s consideration of a WRITTEN policy barring the use of evidence obtained through the use of torture – well, duh! What to do, what to do…

I’ve got it… I’ll touch on all four items. When in doubt, be an equal-opportunity offender, that’s my motto!

1. Abdul Rahman, a 41 yr. old Afghan citizen, is on trial for the heinous crime of… converting from Islam to Christianity. (insert loud gasp here) Apparently, in Afghanistan it is a crime to practice anything but the state-sanctioned religion. And who sanctioned this state? Well, that would be us, the good old U.S. of A. Yep, we decided to prop-up a farce of a government, which bases its Constitution on Islamic law, not the rule of law. Freedom of religion? Forget it. Freedom of speech? Scratch that. Freedom of the press? Not in Mohammed’s house.

Gee, I’m sure glad we brought so much “freedom” to the Afghan people. I wonder… if converting from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death, then gosh, converting from Islam to Judaism must be punishable by a fate worse than death. I wonder what they do with those people… I’ve got it! They ship them over to Gitmo!

2. Thus far, this administration has funneled approximately $157 million to organizations sharing similar anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay, and other anti-American values as the President. All this, under the auspices of “Faith-based initiatives” and other ideological nonsense sponsored by Bush & Co. BTW, If he’s so g-damned faith-based, why do so few people (36% at last count) have any faith in him?

Those on the right would argue that during Democratic administrations, money was funded to organizations that supported things like promoting birth control (Planned Parenthood) and worker training programs (The AFL-CIO). My response to the righties: And your point is?? There is a clear distinction between supporting a religion, any religion, and supporting social programs that are truly secular. For information on the potential pitfalls of state-sponsored religion, please see item 1 above.

3. Today we hear that three western hostages were “rescued” from their captors in Iraq. The three men were peace workers Norman Kember, a British citizen, and Canadians James Loney, and Harmeet Singh Sooden. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am tickled pink that these men are free. I think that the work that these men, and their organization does in Iraq is vitally important, and I applaud their efforts. But I’ve seen some stories that suggest there was some extraordinary rescue mission that went on here. Nothing could be further from the truth. The captors were nowhere to be seen, and not a shot was fired when freeing these men.

And I loved the statement that was made by the workers organization, Christian Peacemaker Teams: "We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq… The occupation must end." Amen, brother.

4. Has Donald Rumsfeld grown a conscience? I highly doubt it. All the same, the Pentagon is now considering a written policy that would prevent the use of any evidence obtained by means of torture. This is being floated with regard to the detainees being held at the black hole known as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The treatment of detainees being held in this location is apparently governed by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which does more to protect the government and the military than it does to protect the detainees.

Here’s my question… If, as Rummy, Condy, and Bushy have suggested, “we don’t torture”, then why is this proposed rule necessary? Are we covering our collective ass? Are we thinking of torturing just of the sake of torture? Or does someone have a guilty conscience? Oh, that’s right, they don’t have a conscience.

BTW, I’d like to personally and publicly thank President George Bush and Co. for providing me with such good and abundant material. If it weren’t for these clowns, this blog would not have been possible. Thanks guys! Keep up the good work!

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Honey, have you seen my anthrax? I know I left it here somewhere.

Could we have been wrong all along? All of us in the not-so-silent majority, who have insisted that it wasn’t a "slam dunk" case, that the books were cooked, that the administration was simply pursuing their own insidious agenda. Is it possible that there actually WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? If you believe former Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada, who wrote a book about his experiences while working for Saddam Hussein, then perhaps there were. And over and above the kool-aid drinking holdouts in the Bush administration, there are others who insist that this is the case. Among them are several members of the U.S. and Israeli intelligence communities.

Even David Kay and Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. WMD investigator after the invasion, have admitted that the possibility exists that Hussein transferred WMD materials across the border to Syria before the invasion. This is precisely the assertion that Sada makes in his book, "Saddam’s Secrets". Now this is not a new story to me, I’ve heard it suggested many times before. In the past, I dismissed it as simply a story pushed by the administration to cover their collective ass.

But I had not heard of Georges Sada before, or his book, which I believe was published sometime late last year or early this year. Fortunately for me, I watched the Daily Show last night, and Jon’s guest was General Sada. The General came across (to me at least) as someone who was not trying to push an agenda, and actually believed what he wrote in the book. Only time and further investigation will tell whether he was correct.

So, for argument’s sake, let’s assume for a moment that the General was right. Let’s assume that Saddam Hussein DID have stockpiles of WMDs. And that somehow, under the cover of darkness, and apparently right under the nose of the U.S. military, he managed to smuggle those weapons into Syria. What does that mean to America, and the rest of the world, now, and in the future?

It means we’re in deep shit, that’s what it means. And it means that this administration screwed up even WORSE than we thought it had. A different screw up to be sure, but a MAJOR screw up, nonetheless. It means that instead of dealing with a large military with WMDs vs. a larger military with the wherewithal to deal with them; we now have the largest state sponsor of terrorism with a stockpile of WMDs, able to arm terrorists bent on using these weapons on civilian populations. Specifically, American civilian populations. It means that the U.S., as well as the rest of the world, can be held hostage.

Scared yet? Good. You should be. Because we’re potentially talking about highly processed anthrax, weaponized and ready to go. We’re talking sarin, GF, mustard, and potentially VX. Better living through chemistry, eh? If this IS the case, if Syria now has possession of stockpiles of WMDs, it represents a crisis of major, if not biblical proportions.

Even knowing this (if it’s true) I STILL do not support our decision to invade Iraq. In fact, I oppose it even more. Why, you wonder? Because the warpath of the so-called "global war on terror" never led through Baghdad. However, it has ALWAYS run straight through Damascus. I’m not even in the intelligence business, and I know that.

But apparently, Syria doesn’t have the major stockpiles of another commodity that Bush & Co. were searching for. Oil. So obviously Syria, even with its deep and proven connections to terrorism, wasn’t the type of target Bush was looking for. Perhaps that’s why the administration is continuing to ratchet up the rhetoric on Iran, while apparently ignoring Syria and North Korea. Iran has oil, the other two only have WMDs.

So what do we do now? We pray that General Sada was mistaken. Because if he is right, then short of:

A. A surprise invasion of Syria. (we don’t seem to be very good at this sort of thing)
B. All the terrorists surrendering (better chance of seeing God)
C. Some really great human intelligence (again, we don’t seem to be very good at this)
D. Divine intervention (again, better chance of seeing… you know what I mean)

we are in some really deep doo-doo.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Tolerance for your fellow man. What a concept!

Love. Mercy. Tolerance. Coexistence. Certainly not the ideas normally attributed to Islamic Clerics. Yet one Egyptian Cleric, who seems to have quite a following, is preaching exactly that. Amr Khaled, an accountant turned televangelist, doesn’t look like your typical Islamic Cleric either. He is known for his stylish suits, his beaming smile, and his welcoming demeanor.

Now, you might expect that someone like Khaled would be somewhat of a controversial figure in the Islamic world, especially fundamental Islam. And that is certainly true. But Khaled has some powerful enemies other than the Ayatollahs. The Egyptian government, for one, doesn’t like this guy. Seems that Khaled’s popularity in Egypt made the government a bit nervous. So they decided to kick him out of the country in 2002.

Khaled and his family proceeded to set up shop in London, and he’s been preaching his message of tolerance ever since. Now, I’m certainly no expert on Islam. Never claimed to be. But I have read bits and pieces of the Koran, and I think this guy has got it right. While the later passages of the Koran preach of waging war against the infidels, the earlier chapters are much more tolerant of one’s fellow man. Sort of the reverse of the Christian Bible – The Old Testament is fire and brimstone, while the New Testament is peace and love.

Khaled has gotten some flak in recent days regarding his attendance at a conference in Copenhagen, Denmark on March 9th between European and Muslim leaders. The controversy over his trip was related to the earlier publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed in an unflattering light. The cartoons were first published in a Danish newspaper, and their publication triggered a wave of violence against western interests in the Middle East and elsewhere.

This week, Khaled is attending a conference in Bahrain to discuss the response to the publication of the cartoons. The conference is organized by one of Khaled's most vocal critics, hard-line Sheik Youssef el-Qaradawi. True to his form, Khaled has advocated tolerance and restraint in the reaction to the cartoons in the Muslim world. And true to their form, Islamic fundamentalists have slammed him for it every chance they get.

But Khaled has never been dissuaded from his mission to bring the Middle East a little closer to the west. He is quoted by the AP as saying: "For the past three years, with youth across the Islamic world, we've been working for a faith-based renaissance in this region, which will not take place by clashes but by coexistence.” Regarding his opposition: “An initiative by definition is something new, and I represent a school that has opposing schools of thought". Sounds like this guy actually practices what he preaches. Tolerance. Even for his vocal critics.

Jews. Christians. Muslims. In the end, no matter how you slice it, we are all the children of Abraham, and we are all God’s children. It shouldn’t matter whether you call Him Allah, Yahweh, or Jehovah. We are all in this thing together. Amr Khaled seems to understand that. Now we just need the rest of the world to figure it out.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Happy Spring!

Well, springtime is here. The sun is shining, the birds are singing, the trees are budding, and all is right with the world. Well, perhaps not.

And in the Middle East, it is a special time of year as well. It's Iranian New Years day, and it's the first day of year 4 of the American occupation of Iraq. The sun is shining, the birds are singing, the bombs are falling, and something is fishy in Denmark.

It appears that the U.S. and Iraq can't even agree as to whether the country is in the middle of a civil war. Meanwhile, the Bush administration has been ratcheting up the rhetoric regarding Iran, in a manner eerily similar to that employed prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The United States insists that Iraq is not in the midst of a civil war. Meanwhile, the Former Prime Minister of Iraq, Ayad Allawi is adamant about the fact that Iraq is indeed in a civil war. Allawi is quoted as saying: "We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more,...If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." Let's see here... The U.S. government, who has always painted a rosy picture of Iraq, vs. the former P.M. (who actually lives in the country). Hmmmm. Who would you believe?

Whether there truly exists a state of civil war in Iraq, in the grand scheme of things, is immaterial. Call it what you want, civil war, insurgency, spring-cleaning, whatever. It's pretty clear that this pre-emptive war, waged by the U.S. and the coalition of the coerced, has taken a devastating toll on Iraq and its people.

Iraq by the numbers:

There have been many estimates on the number of civilians killed as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Pentagon, if pressed, would likely use one of the lowest estimates of around 16,000-20,000. There have also been estimates made of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the U.S. military action. There is, however, an organization called The Iraq Body Count Project, which bases their estimates on reported deaths from multiple news sources, and has a methodology that involves corroborating data before posting their numbers.

IBC's current civilian death toll is between 33,679 and 37,795. I will have their counter displayed on my blog until this war (both the invasion and the resulting civil war) is over.

The current number of coalition military casualties in Iraq, according to iCasualties.org, is at 2525.

The current number of Iraq security forces killed in Iraq since the start of the war, is 4294. This, also according to iCasualties.org.

This is just a partial snapshot of the human toll of this war. It does not include unreported Iraqi civilian deaths, or deaths of members of Sadaam Hussein's military at the start of this war. It does not take into account the Iraqis who have died from disease, who might otherwise have gotten the medical attention they needed, but the aftermath of this war prevented it. Also not included are the countless Iraqis who have lost their homes, their possessions, their security, and any semblance of a normal life. The dead can be buried. Buildings can be rebuilt. But the true human toll of this tragedy will likely never be fully understood, or completely addressed. And this is the legacy that the Bush administration wants to leave to the Middle East.

So, to the people of Iraq, Happy Spring! Enjoy the flowers and the sunshine, and try to dodge the bullets and bombs.

And to our friends in Iran, Happy New Year! Looks like President Bush and company are working on a very special surprise to celebrate the event. If Iraq "liberation" is any indication, this party is gonna be a real blast!

Thursday, March 16, 2006

An Open Letter to our Senators

I was very happy to see that Sen. Boxer of CA and Sen. Harkin of IA showed that they take their job seriously.

I decided I'd do what I could to put some pressure on the rest of the United States Senate. Perhaps they'll grow a spine.

I'm sending the following letter to every U.S. Senator:

Dear Senator,

On Monday, a courageous American stood up on the Senate floor and demonstrated that his sense of duty to his country was more important than partisan politics. That man was Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin. Sen. Feingold introduced a resolution to censure President George W. Bush for his actions involving the NSA domestic surveillance program. And thus far, only two U.S. Senators have had the courage to stand with him. I would encourage you to do the same.

I applaud these two Senators, who are willing to put country before politics. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, and Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, have showed the courage of their convictions. They have taken their oath as Senators, and their patriotic duty as Americans seriously. Can the same be said for you?

Defenders of the President’s actions have suggested that any opposition to anything this administration does is unpatriotic, and gives “comfort and aid to our enemies.” I beg to differ. Tactics such as this are simply intended to discourage dissent, even in the face of obvious wrongdoing. Those that would employ such tactics underestimate the intelligence of the American people, as is evident today. You read the same polls as I do Senator, what are they telling you? The American people have had enough of an administration that thinks it is above the law.

This administration has attempted to build a culture of fear in this country, in the hopes that their illegal activities would go unnoticed, or at least unquestioned. They have continually warned us that our enemies are determined to strike us again, and that any overreaching on their part, any violation of the laws of this country or our Constitution is justified. I believe strongly that the President should do everything within his power (and within the law) to defend the American people. But I will not turn a blind eye to abuses of power by this administration. And I will not be afraid. So I have to ask the question Senator, what are you afraid of? Al Qaeda? Or your President?

This administration and its defenders have suggested that if we question this President’s actions, then our enemies win. I beg to differ. When we give up our Constitutional freedoms, our enemies win. When we are no longer are a nation of laws, our enemies win. When we put political party before country, our enemies win. When the legislative branch of our government becomes a rubber stamp for the President, our enemies win.

The Constitution and the laws of the United States are the glue that holds our country together. They define who we are as a people, and as a nation. They cannot simply be brushed aside at the whim of the President. Perhaps President Abraham Lincoln said it best: “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.”

America is more than just a country, it is an idea. It is the revolutionary idea that defending the rights, and respecting the will of the people, are the sacred responsibilities of the government. It is the idea that “justice for all” means exactly that, and that everyone possesses equal protection under our law. It is the idea that no single person is above the law, even those in the highest offices of the government. And this President needs to be held to the same standard as any other citizen, if the idea of America is going to survive.

But I shouldn’t have to remind you of this. After all, you are a United States Senator. So do me, do yourself, and do your country proud. Start acting like it.

Sincerely...

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Grow a backbone you spineless twits!

There are truly times when I am embarrassed to be a Democrat. The past couple of days fall into that category. Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, one of the few in the party these days who seems to have the courage of his convictions, has proposed legislation to censure President Bush. And not one Democrat stepped up to the plate to stand with him. Not one.

What does this say about our party? Here you have a President whose constant overreaching and power-grabbing threatens to render the Constitution and Bill of Rights moot, and the Democratic members of Congress and the Senate are afraid to stand up and say: "No you don't. Not on my watch." I expect that from Republicans. They talk a good game, but when it comes to it, they're just sheep being led around by their White House masters. But the Democrats! When did my party loose sight of the fact that the three most important words in the Constitution are: "We the People"?

Shame on you! Shame on you, Senator Reid. Shame on you, Senator Durbin. Shame on you, Congresswoman Pelosi. Shame on you, Congressman Hoyer. You are the leaders of your party! Quit cowering in the corner and lead!! Or else step aside for someone who is willing to lead. So far, the only Democratic legislators who seem willing to do that are Sen. Feingold and Rep. Conyers.

Now is no time for the Democrats in Congress and the Senate to shirk their responsibilities as our representatives. The stakes are far too high. America needs leadership. Leadership it can trust. Leadership that won't back down from a fight. Leadership that will hold this administration accountable to its constituents - namely, We the People.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

ACLU Releases First Concrete Evidence of FBI Spying Based Solely on Groups’ Anti-War Views

Here's a story that is chilling in its ramifications. I won't editorialize further, it speaks for itself.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/24528prs20060314.html

'Nuff said.

Just your friendly neighborhood Big Brother here...

A judge is apparently going to order Google to turn over some records to the federal government. Google had previously fought this request, unlike Yahoo, MSN, and AOL, who all rolled over, just like the administration lap dogs that they are. Here’s the article:

CNN article

This is huge. The justice department claims that the purpose of this “request” is to bolster a pornography case it is arguing in Pennsylvania. Yeah right. So of course, none of the information it obtains will be used for other purposes. None of it will be of a personal nature. Why don’t I believe them?

If the justice department has suddenly woken up and decided to fight crime again, I’ve got a better use of their time. Go arrest the guy in the White House. While you’re at it, go arrest the guy in Blair House.

Gee, if they are really looking for porn searches, maybe if I Google “President Bush screws America” or “Cheney says ‘go fuck yourself’”, they’ll come looking for me.

Nah. I wouldn’t be that lucky.


3/15/06:

A follow-up on this post....

Here's some good information relevant to this discussion:

http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2006/03/new-spy-vs-spy.html

Thanks Dave & Cheryl

Let’s help get the ball rolling.

Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D) MI, has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, and their abuses of power.

He is currently seeking public support for a Congressional investigation that may eventually lead to the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

I, for one, am all for that.

Let’s help out one of the few courageous Americans in Congress who is willing to stand up to this out-of-control President. Show Rep. Conyers your support:

http://johnconyers.com/citizencosponsors

We can sit by and watch the hijacking of our democracy, or we can stand up and do something about it.

Hope you like it warm.

The UN is reporting that 2004 was a banner year for mother earth. Surface temperatures were the highest since they've been keeping records. Similarly, the level of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere has also reached a record high. Here's the article:

CNN Article

Do you think there is a coincidence between these two statistics? If you believe our President, who of course has extensive knowledge on the subject, then the answer is no. Mr. Bush has frequently stated that the subject needs to be “studied”. It HAS been studied. For DECADES. And the conclusions are consistently the same: Emissions of greenhouse gases at the current levels into the atmosphere is causing global warming.

Dr. James Hansen, one of the most respected experts on the issue, has an excellent piece on the “debate” over global warming:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

Yet our Polluter-in Chief refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol. He refuses to consider any legislation that would put strict limits on greenhouse emissions. He refuses to accept the reality of the situation, because it doesn’t coincide with oil and gas profits. And after all, that’s what makes the world go ‘round.

Besides, if we start limiting the burning of fossil fuels, this war for oil in Iraq will be all for naught. Can’t have that. Gotta keep the execs. at Halliburton and the Saudi royal family happy.

Oh well, guess I’ll just buy stock in air conditioner manufacturers.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Why did she have to retire?

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a speech at Georgetown University, criticized Republicans who have denounced so-called "activist judges". Many Republican leaders have been vocal about judges who they say "legislate from the bench". Some even calling for impeachment or suggesting retribution for judges so labeled. There has even been violence directed at judges for their positions. Justice O'Connor said "We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary."

We are truly in trouble in this country if the judiciary has to worry about whether they get killed because some zealot doesn't agree with their rulings. And it is an atrocity that legislators like Sen. Tom DeLay, Sen. Bill Frist, and Sen. John Cornyn would accept, even encourage such behavior.

These right-wing Christian zealots who were up in arms about the Teri Schiavo case are prime examples of why the judiciary needs to be independent, and needs to be protected from retribution for doing their job. And in that case, in hindsight, the courts were correct!! The autopsy proved that Schiavo's brain had been severely damaged, and she was in a Persistent, Vegetative State.

Yet we have a so-called physician like Bill Frist in the Senate, who "diagnoses" Teri Schiavo based on a video that he saw. And this guy is the Senate Majority Leader? He's not even very good at what he's been trained to do, let alone make decisions for his constituents and millions of Americans.

Yet these same types preach against "activist judges". Well, aren't they just "activist legislators"? Their job is to represent their constituents, not interpret the Bible on the Senate floor.

And their job is certainly NOT to prevent the Judicial branch from doing their job, independently, and without the threat of violence

Bush using Nukes in Iraq

The term "nuclear weapons" should probably be expanded. For any of the Bush youth reading, that's "NUKE-U-LAR". This category should also include depleted uranium ammunition, which has been used in the Iraq war, the war in Bosnia, as well as the original Persian Gulf war.

Depleted uranium is an extremely dense metal that penetrates armor better than the traditional tungsten ammunition used by most militaries. Depleted uranium, or DU, is a byproduct of the process of removing fissionable uranium, used in reactors and nuclear weapons, from naturally occurring uranium. DU remains radioactive for 4.5 billion years. It is extremely toxic, especially when it is used as tank ammo, because when it impacts, it creates a fine ceramic uranium dust.

This dust can be inhaled, or can leach into ground water, and has the potential to cause major health problems. Anybody ever hear of Gulf War Syndrome?? Is it coincidence that the rates of cancer among Iraqis have increased drastically since the first Gulf war? – In one area of southern Iraq (near the Kuwait border), in 1988, 34 people died of cancer; in 1998, 450 died of cancer; in 2001 there were 603 cancer deaths. Is it coincidence that birth defects spiked after the first Gulf war? - In 1989 there were 11 per 100,000 births; in 2001 there were 116 per 100,000 births. And more evidence continues to mount on the toxic affects of DU from both Gulf wars.

I’m certainly not the first person to bring up this subject. But it doesn’t get the “face time” it deserves in the corporate media. War is hell. I understand that. But the results of the wars that we have fought in this country are going to plague the people of Iraq for generations to come. We told them we were bringing them freedom. We neglected to mention that we were going to do it with nuclear weapons.

Friday, March 10, 2006

Looking to the Heavens

One of my most vivid early memories is that of a clear summer day in July, 1969. I had just turned 4 in April, and was still full of wonder for the world around me. And on that day, my wonderment extended to the heavens above me, where a brave American was about to set his foot upon another world for the first time in human history. At the time, the historical significance of the event was lost upon me, I just thought it was cool that men were about to walk on the moon, and I would see it happen on my family's black and white TV. To that point, many of the "news" images that I had seen on television had brought more fear than wonder, getting a daily deluge of images of a war that I didn't understand, being waged thousands of miles away. This, on the other hand, was the stuff of a young boy's fantasies - traveling through space to explore another world. I've been a science junkie ever since.

Our country had committed to make this remarkable day happen nearly ten years earlier, under the leadership of President John F. Kennedy. Kennedy said, in his call to action, "Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share." The statement is as true today as it was 45 years ago. Since that time, we have consistently been the most scientifically advanced country on the planet. And we owe it to ourselves, and to the rest of mankind to continue to make every effort to advance our knowledge and understanding in all areas of science.

Yesterday, the Cassini spacecraft found evidence of liquid water on one of Saturn's moons. Today, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter will attempt to enter orbit around Mars. Its mission is to study the Martian atmosphere and surface, and it will probe underground in search of past and present water. Both of these missions will undoubtedly provide valuable knowledge about our solar system, and perhaps give us a greater understanding of the universe around us. We cannot predict where this knowledge will lead us, but we can be sure that efforts such as these, and in other areas of science, have the potential to benefit mankind in countless unforeseeable ways.

The conveniences and technology that we take for granted today... personal computers, cell phones, microwaves, satellite communications, MRI's, etc., wouldn't have been possible without the strides made during the space program. Breakthroughs in medicine and medical technology happen on a daily basis, and are allowing us to live longer, healthier lives. Efforts in the agricultural sciences are allowing us to produce more food on less acreage, and permitting us the opportunity (if we take advantage of it) to truly end hunger on our planet.

There are those who are hesitant to support much of the scientific research that would lead to tomorrow's breakthroughs. Some argue that the cost is too high. I say that the cost NOT to explore, not to investigate, not to ask "what if?” is far too high. Others argue that there is the potential for abuse of this science, and that the ethical consequences are not being considered. I would argue that the benefits far outweigh the risks, and I would hope mankind is mature enough to be responsible with our discoveries. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

On that July evening, over 36 years ago, I looked up at that full moon, shining down upon me, and I knew that someone was up there, someone had done something that had never been done before, and I wished that I could go up there with them. I was in awe of what we had accomplished, and I was proud to be an American. From that day to this, I have always believed that we as a nation could accomplish anything we set out to do. And we as a people, as a nation, must continue to support the efforts to advance our knowledge and understanding of the universe around us. We must continue to lift our eyes, and look to the heavens.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Jimmy Carter: A great American.

Former President Jimmy Carter, one of the truly great statesmen and peacemakers in the world, is once again showing himself to be the voice of reason in an increasingly unreasonable world. In an address prior to the dedication of a building at the University of Washington, Pres. Carter called for the gradual withdrawal or U.S. troops from Iraq. Here's the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_on_re_us/carter_iraq

I really think the world of President Carter. He should go down as one of the greatest Americans of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. His unwavering devotion to his country, his faith, and his principles are unparalleled amongst Presidents of the modern era. His commitment to human rights, civil rights, voter rights, and the rights of the poor and less fortunate, put him in a class by himself amongst American statesmen. Here is a man who practices what he preaches - something unheard of in American politics today.

In an era when we seem to be as divided as a nation, and as a world, as we humans may have ever been, it's refreshing to see someone in the spotlight who would fight and advocate for peace. The warmongers will likely get their feathers ruffled by this post, as they seem to take great pleasure in labeling Carter a "weak" President. But I can't think of a man who has sat in the oval office with a stronger character than President James Earl Carter.


"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9).


Here are some people doing great work throughout the world today:

http://www.cartercenter.org/

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Codifying the rape of the Constitution

The fourth amendment is pretty simple to understand. People are to be secure in their personal effects, their homes, their communications, etc., from unreasonable search and seizure. Simple enough. Even President Bush can understand it. However, there seems to be a distinction being made in Washington between understanding out Constitution, and adhering to it. This is most famously evidenced by the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens by the NSA.

Now, apparently, there is a "compromise" being proposed by some members of the U.S. senate, including my buddy Sen. Mike DeWine of Ohio. The Bill being proposed would allow the current program to continue, under "strict oversight" by Senate and House committees set up to oversee the surveillance program. Under the legislation, any unwarranted wiretaps would be reviewed every 45 days. "At that time, the administration would have three options: apply for a warrant, if there is enough information to justify one; stop the surveillance; or explain to Congress why it is in the national security interest to continue the surveillance and why officials cannot apply to the FISA court for a warrant."

I'd just like to remind our legislators in Washington.... you can't legitimize violating the Constitution by codifying the violation. Making this a law does not repeal the fourth amendment. And who is to say that the administration's "explanation" as to why they can't get a warrant is going to be on the up-and-up?

And now we find out that after all the pretend outrage demonstrated by members of Congress and the Senate, there will be no formal investigation of the program will be conducted by the Senate Intelligence or Judicial committees, under coercive pressure from the White House. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the ranking democrat on the Intelligence committee was quoted as saying, "The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House" and "This was an unprecedented bow to political pressure". Does anybody doubt at this point that the administration is trying to hide something regarding this program?

Lincoln (a Republican) said it best:

"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."

At this point, if that isn't a call to action, I don't know what is.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

It's not about "right to life", it's not about "pro choice", it's about privacy.

On Monday, with the stroke of a pen, the Governor of South Dakota effectively outlawed abortion in his state. And struck another blow to dismantle the U.S. Constitution and our rights as citizens.

Why is it that the government feels it has the right to poke their nose into our bedrooms? Our families? Our bodies? Our thoughts? When was it that the American people abdicated their right to privacy? I don't remember voting on it. I don't remember there being any referendum on it. When exactly did the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cease to exist?

I've heard conservatives argue the point in the past that they are for individual rights, and liberals are for "group" rights. Well in the final analysis, attacks on the right to privacy don't make the distinction between Republican or Democrat, individual or group. It goes to the very core of the principles this country was founded upon. And those conservatives, those Republicans who would support this ridiculous South Dakota law, are once again whittling away at their own freedoms.

Someday, some conservative is going to start to say to me, "but I have the right...". And I'm going to cut him off by saying, "No you don't. Remember, you guys took those away."

Monday, March 06, 2006

Now matter how hard they try, our government can't get New Orleans right.

The Washington Post is now reporting that the job that our Army Corps of Engineers is doing to rebuild New Orleans levees will likely result in levees that are WEAKER than the original system. This, according to two independent groups of experts who have evaluated the Corps of Engineers plans. The Corps of Engineers disputes these conclusions. Here's the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/05/AR2006030500976_pf.html

Now, I'm an mechanical engineer. It's what I have done for a living for the past 20 years. And I can tell you, this is not art, it's science. Especially with today's technology. You can take a proposed design and simulate the conditions that will occur in a hurricane situation. This way, you can verify what your calculations say with what the simulations predict. As such, there is really no reason for the two expert teams to come up with different conclusions than the Corps of Engineers. So, it sure looks like someone here is lying.

Well, based on the track record of this administration, and the fact that the Corps is being pushed to have the work done by June 1st, I wonder who that is.

A colleague sent me the following regarding the failure of the levees in New Orleans. I don't know whether its more funny, or sad.


Their Levees, Our Levees

Here's how the British hold back the waters from flooding London:















And the Dutch solution to protecting an entire nation that mostly rests below sea level:





















The Italians are defending their city on the sea, Venice:














And the richest, most powerful and technologically advanced nation on earth....USA!!!!!! Go Corps of Engineers!!!!














Hey, it takes a lot of money to keep corrupt politicians corrupt.

Friday, March 03, 2006

A teacher trying to brainwash his class? Nope, just smoke and mirrors.

The right wing talking heads are really chattering about this one. Apparently, a teacher in Colorado had the audacity to express an opinion critical of the Bush administration. Now, I don't agree with what he did, but more on that later.

The real story here is that the conservative base is trying to make a huge story about this. Never mind that the administration botched the response to Katrina. Never mind that our government is illegally wiretapping Americans, and has twisted arms to make sure Congress doesn't do anything about it. Never mind that corruption seems to be rampant in the Republican party, based on the likes of Jack Abramoff, "Duke" Cunningham, Tom Delay, Bob Taft, Bob Ney, I could go on and on. Never mind that we went to war on false pretenses and justified it with intelligence information that the CIA, FBI, and other foreign intelligence agencies considered questionable at best.

No. We have to talk about what a teacher in Colorado said to his Geography class, because a student recorded the class, and ran off to a right wing radio talk show with it to show off his trophy. Incidently, 150 students walked out of that school yesterday because the school suspended the teacher. But this is supposed to be the big story. The only part of this story that is REALLY important is the fact that the teacher's first amendment rights may have been violated.

Former CIA director George Tenet flubs the intelligence on Iraq and George Bush pins a medal on him. Bill Clinton get a blow job and gets impeached. Well, I guess if we use right wing logic, this teacher should be taken out and shot.

Now, regarding what the teacher did...

Well, I'm going to probably get some flak from my liberal brethren on this, but I don't think what the teacher did was appropriate.

Not because of what he said, because I agree with most of what he had to say.

Not because he expressed an opinion, because I feel he has every right to, as do all his students.

My main beef with this is that it was in the context of a Geography class, not a history, poli-sci, or philosophy class. In the context in which it was presented, I feel it was inappropriate.

Now I haven't heard all of the tape, so I don't know how much of this was "discussion" and how much of it was "lecture". However, he was teaching a Geography class, with, in effect, a captive audience, and he decided to deliver an op-ed piece on the State of the Union address. I simply don't think it belongs there.

But that's just my opinion. Class dismissed.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Coincidence? I wonder.

A letter dated February 22, 2006 was sent to Senator Hillary Clinton from Idan Ofer, the head of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Israel's largest shipping company. In the letter, Mr. Ofer strongly supports DP World, the U.A.E. company involved in the recent deal to gain control of 21 U.S. ports. Mr. Ofer states "We are proud to be associated with DP World and look forward to working with them into the future."

High praise from a company in Israel about a company that has publicly advocated for, and continues to adhere to, an Arab boycott of Israel. What would make an Israeli so supportive of such an Arab company? I wonder.

While you're contemplating that, consider the fact that Zim Integrated Shipping Services vacated their offices in the World Trade Center a week prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

While you're contemplating that, consider that the parent company of Zim, "The Israel Corporation" has SIGNIFICANT oil interests throughout the world, including the Arab world.

Coincidence? I wonder.

If the symbol of the DEMOCRATIC party is a donkey, why is HE such a jackass?

So now, once again, we find the President caught in a lie. Roll the tape....

Turns out that in two briefings that were video taped, both the day before and the day of Katrina hitting New Orleans, the administration was informed that a breach of the levees was "a very, very great concern". This statement was made by National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield, whom I would think would be one of the best people to evaluate the potential power of the storm. Yet four days later, the President made the statement "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." Yes, Mr. President, someone did. And he made it pretty clear that he was concerned about it. And you sat on your ass in Crawford.

The day prior to the storm making landfall, the President made this statement during a video conference from his ranch in Crawford, TX.: "I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm to help you deal with the loss of property. And we pray for no loss of life, of course". Unfortunately, it looks like your prayers weren't answered Mr. President. More than 1300 people died as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Where was all this help you promised? Where were all the assets that you promised to move into place. The facts of the event indicate that the federal response was minimal, and late. And you sat on your ass in Crawford.

According to CNN, the administration was quick to put the blame elsewhere: "In an apparent effort to deflect criticism from the Bush administration, Homeland Security officials highlighted in yellow parts of the transcript that showed any weakness by local officials." Surprise, surprise. Isn't it you & your staff, Mr. President, who are always saying we shouldn't play "the blame game"? Well what are you doing now? "We were bad, but look at them!" Pay no attention to the empty suit behind the curtain... Be a man. Take responsibility for your own failures. Truman was right, "the buck stops here." Ultimately, President Bush needs to be held accountable for the things that he did and didn't do, and the statements that he made, that are now a matter of public record.

How much evidence does the Congress need before they start Impeachment proceedings?? I mean, really, is this not a failure to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare"? Not to mention all the other illegal and unethical activity that is the hallmark of this administration. When will Congress grow a backbone? And when will the American people stand up and demand that they do their job?

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

What legacy will we leave our children?

CNN has a story on their website regarding today’s developments in the battle over the Patriot Act. The first line of the story says it all:

“WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Republicans moved Wednesday to prevent Democrats from trying to add more civil liberties safeguards to a renewal of the 2001 Patriot Act due to expire next week.”

Republicans prevent Democrats from adding civil liberty safeguards. Hmmmm. Why doesn’t this surprise me? The party that brought you war under false pretenses, Plamegate, illegal wiretapping, selling port security to the highest bidder, now wants to prevent protections of civil liberties from being added to the Patriot Act legislation.

Republican Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky made the comment: “Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead.” How fitting a statement from a leader in the Republican party. The other day, I said that the Republicans who blindly follow Bush & Co. are traitors. I was only half right. Apparently they are cowards as well.

The founding fathers of our nation were willing to face death for what they believed in. And they lived in a time when enemies of the crown were publicly drawn & quartered. They realized that what they were fighting for was more important than their lives, and it was an ideal that cowards like Senator Bunning cannot grasp. That government is a servant of the people, not vice-versa. That freedom and liberty are the birthright of mankind, and no man, no government has the right to take that away from another human being. That we owe it to our children, and our children’s children, to leave them a world where they have the rights and freedoms that we are willing to fight and die to protect.

Ben Franklin hit the nail right on the head: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” If we choose to continue to sit idly by while those in power shred the Constitution, we deserve to live the curse of Franklin’s prophetic words. The saddest part is, our children do not.