Truth, For a Change

Gerald R. Ford: A good man steering our nation through some truly bad times.

2006-12-31T14:29:00.000-05:00

President Ford had been labeled "exceptional" and "extraordinary" for many reasons. The shortest tenure of any President in the twentieth century. The only man to assume both the Vice Presidency and Presidency without being elected. The only President ever to pardon the man who put him into office. The list goes on. And yet in my book, these are not the most important reasons that this humble, unassuming man was so exceptional. These are merely the circumstances that helped to bring out the greatness in our 38th President.

Three decades ago, after being sworn in as President after the resignation of President Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford made what I’m sure was an excruciatingly difficult decision, issuing a full pardon to his predecessor. This single act would forever define Mr. Ford’s Presidency, for good or for ill (depending on who you ask). Ford’s critics have suggested that this was not only a mistake, but was part of a deal that was made when Ford was chosen to replace Agnew as V.P. Ford’s defenders have stated that the pardon was necessary to help heal the rift in our nation, and allow us to ""move on".

I’m glad that this was the act that defined Ford’s Presidency. Because this one decision showed Mr. Ford for the good man and great leader that he was. This single act showed not only his compassion, but his courage as well. At the time he made this decision, Ford stood truly alone, making a choice he knew would be terribly unpopular, yet still the right thing to do. He showed us that the measure of a man goes well beyond what he can accomplish in good times, but what fortitude and integrity he can show when faced with overwhelming challenges.

As our nation mourns the passing of this former President, I hope that we will take to heart the lessons of his leadership.

Merry Christmas, one and all.

2006-12-24T02:08:00.000-05:00

It occurs to me, as we approach this Holiday, that much of what Christmas means to most Americans revolves around children. Whether that be the enduring symbolism of the Christ child, or the countless parents being reunited with their grown children and young grandchildren during the holidays, or all the things that we all do to make this season special for the children in our lives. It’s all about the children. As it ever was, I'm glad to say, so it remains.

And it got me to thinking about my own children, as well as the children and grandchildren of my loved ones, near and far. I pondered the legacy, as well as the world we will leave to them and their descendants.

It seems to me that I’ve spent a great deal of time on my blog talking about the ills of the world that we live in, and the evils that we endure. In the context of the future that we bequeath to the next generations, it’s apparent to me that thus far, we as a society have not done such a good job of securing the future for our posterity.

So my hope for this blessed season, and the coming years ahead, is that we as a nation, and as a world, pursue a path that ensures peace and prosperity for generations to come. That perhaps, just perhaps, we can mold a future worthy of those that will continue long after we pass beyond the fragile limits of this physical world. And that our children, and our children’s children, will continue to pass that torch to future generations, and strive to make the world even better for the generations yet to come.

And to those that I love, past, present, and future... I wish for you nothing less than a very peaceful and blessed Christmas, and a bright, prosperous, and healthy New Year.

God Bless.

Marlipern

It appears that bigotry is back in vogue these days.

2006-12-21T11:11:00.000-05:00

In one of my previous posts, I discussed the all-too-typical response by the holier-than-thou righties regarding the first Muslim member of Congress using the Koran in his swearing-in ceremony. The likes of Dennis Prager warned of the evils of "multiculturalist activism", and the fact that the act "undermines American civilization."

Now we have a member of Congress spewing his version of good old red-blooded American bigotry regarding the same subject.

Rep. Virgil Goode mass mailed a letter stating HE was going to have a Bible in HIS hand when he took the oath of office. The Republican from Virginia (how did I know he was from the south?) further suggested that unless everyone adopts HIS position on immigration, there would be "many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.". Oh my GOD!!!!! What will we do??? How dare these Muslims presume to have the same rights as every other American!! What is this world coming to??

Mr. Goode further warned that we need to limit legal immigration of Muslims if we want to "preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped." A Native American with the ID "Bearpaw" had a great comment on a discussion board regarding Rep. Goode's comment:

"Clearly things would've been so much simpler if my ancestors hadn't set a bad precedent when they helped the Pilgrims live through the winter. If we'd only known that our resources would've been swamped ..."

Darn that multiculturalism! It's downright un-American!

I remember that we used to have another term for that evil "multiculturalism" in our country. We called it "the great melting pot", and time was, it wasn't such a bad thing. Apparently though, we've since de-evolved into a less tolerant, more bigoted nation. Sad.

Yes indeed, "Bring us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses..." Just as long as they're white, Christian, English-speaking sheeple of European descent.

The trolls ruined it for everyone.

2006-12-13T08:38:00.000-05:00

Due to a sudden surge in hit-and-run, unsolicited, unrelated comment entries to the blog, I have turned "Moderate comments" on in the blog settings.

I apologize to the non-trolls out there for any inconvenience. As I said, they ruined it for everyone.

I'll try to get your comments posted on a timely basis.

Thanks for your patience, and thanks for reading the blog.

Marlipern

Shall we change the Constitution to read: “We the Christians”?

2006-12-04T12:01:00.000-05:00

I don’t think so. And neither did the founding fathers.

Yet now we have the all-too-typical hypocritical “conservative Christians” (an oxymoron) coming out of the woodwork, foaming at the mouth, full of fake outrage, all over a Muslim Congressman-elect, who has the audacity to NOT be a hypocrite regarding his own faith.

Keith Ellison, the Democrat Congressman-to-be from Minnesota, and a Muslim, has stated that he plans on placing his hand on the Koran, rather than the Christian Bible, when he takes his oath of office. Being that he’s a Muslim, I certainly wouldn’t expect anything different. As a matter of fact, I’d be quite surprised if he chose to use the Bible instead. This is a man who apparently is trying to be true to his faith – a commendable trait amongst our leaders, don’t you think?

Yet there are some who claim the moniker “Christian”, who can’t seem to grasp the integrity behind this simple act. Last week, a friend forwarded an email to me from a group called the “American Family Association” (spare me), calling for Congress to make it the law of the land that elected officials must take their oath of office swearing on the Christian Bible. Here’s an excerpt from the email, quoting the infamous Dennis Prager:

“Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.”

I pointed out to my religious friend that as much as some on the Christian right would like it to be otherwise, we have a separation of church & state in our country, and rightly so. I also noted that orthodox Islam considered Christ on the same spiritual level as their own prophet, Muhammad; while those in the “conservative Christian” movement are not nearly as tolerant of the Islamic faith, even though Christ always preached tolerance. I further pointed out that the radical wing of Islam has given the rest of that faith a bad name, but that doesn’t mean that the radical wing of Christianity should do the same to our faith.

She responded that this issue wasn’t about tolerance. Huh?? Then what the hell is it about? She also argued that we were founded on “Judeo-Christian morals and law”. Yes, with a specific separation of church and state – um, what’s your point? She then made the comment that this was about “truth”. Nope your argument is about faith. And that Christ “would want us to stand up for truth in love. But love doesn't mean allowing others to create their own truth and forcing it upon others and that is what is happening.” Bingo! That is exactly what is happening. Problem is, she didn’t realize that this is exactly what the “conservative Christians” are doing – forcing their “truth” upon others.

I responded that bottom line, this is constitutional issue, not a religious one, and that constitutionally speaking, Mr. Ellison is in the right. As a matter of fact, the issue of the separation of church and state is more clearly delineated in the section regarding taking an oath of office than probably any other section of the constitution.

From Article VI:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

That pretty much puts the nails in the coffin of the "conservative Christians' " ridiculous argument. There is little ambiguity here. If this issue were ever brought up before the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Ellison would win the case. Period. I’ll go even further… It would be a unanimous decision, even with the current conservative-leaning court.

Now I suppose the conservatives could push to change the constitution to require that the Bible be used in swearing-in ceremonies. I doubt that they would be successful. But if they were, I’m sure it would be touted as a great day for “conservative Christianity”. Perhaps. But in my humble opinion, it would truly be a sad day in the history of our republic.

We’re in this thing, so what the heck do we do now?

2006-11-27T13:36:00.000-05:00

I’ll freely admit, I’ve spent entirely too much time hashing over why and how we got into this mess we find ourselves in in Iraq. I’ve laid blame, I’ve pointed fingers, and I’ve gotten personal. And the entire time, with all my ranting and raving, posturing and postulating, I’ve offered no solutions, no ideas on how to get us out of this pickle. And that’s not like me. I’ve spent my professional life coming up with innovative solutions to complex problems, being the “idea guy” when a customer needs a fix for the dilemma he finds himself in. And while peace in the region certainly can’t be equated to increasing production, or reducing costs, I’d like to think I could offer something more meaningful than what I’ve thus far put forward.

The first obvious question: Do we stay, or do we go? And this is certainly a difficult one to answer. On the one hand, you have the concern that a departure of U.S. forces would lead to a collapse of the fragile Iraqi government, MORE sectarian violence, and MORE instability in the region. On the other hand, you have the argument that the U.S. presence, in and of itself, contributes to the escalating violence; that we’ve done all we really can do to set the people of Iraq on their way, and that our personnel have become little more than live target practice for terrorist elements within the country. On this issue, I have to lean towards a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country. I do believe we’ve done all that we can from a military point of view. Now is the time for helping to build a future for the Iraqi people. Our efforts now should focus on them developing their own security and infrastructure.

The next question: When and how? Well, I don’t believe in a sudden, massive withdrawal of our troops. This process needs to be phased, and it needs to be orderly. As for a timetable… I know many have said that if we give a fixed date, it will just allow the terrorist elements to “wait us out”. Hogwash. Not if we do it right. But for argument’s sake, fine, let’s keep the timetable internal, not for public consumption. Our government will be aware of it, and Iraqi leadership will be aware of it, everyone else can wait and see. But whether or not you publicize it, before you execute a plan, you have to have a plan. My suggestion would be a reduction of 50% of the existing U.S. forces within a year, and the balance gradually over five years. During that period we have to insist on the Iraqis building up their own security forces, cause in five years guys, you’re on your own. Want your country back? Then act like it.

Another important question: How do we end the sectarian violence? Is there a political or diplomatic solution to this, rather than a military one? These people have been fighting amongst themselves for generations. It’s foolish to believe that they will put aside their differences, religious, ethnic, and culturally, overnight. Could a divided Iraq still be a united Iraq? Is it worth considering the option of three separate, but equal Iraqi states? Setting up a two-house legislature within the country similar to the U.S. model. One house has equal representation; the other has representation based upon population. I’m tossing this one out there, as I’m sure others have already done. Could this be a way to keep the peace, and prevent Iraq from tearing itself asunder?

And finally, the overall question of stability within the region: Whatever we do in Iraq, the broader theme of peace within the region remains. Wiser men than I have said, “the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Jerusalem, not Baghdad. Truer words have never been spoken. Until we find a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, stability within this part of the world will elude us. Let’s face it, we in the West created this problem in the first place (no, not the overall Jewish-Arab rift, the real estate problem); we ought to help come up with a solution. The Israelis are making some encouraging gestures as we speak, perhaps this will be the start of something concrete and lasting.

Stability in this region is more than just a high ideal or noble cause. It may very well mean our very survival as a species. Everyone is afraid of a nuclear Middle East. News flash folks… We HAVE a nuclear Middle East. Whether declared or not, it seems highly unlikely that both Israel and Saudi Arabia are not part of the nuclear club. And we know that Pakistan and India are members of that club, although perhaps not officially “in” the Middle East, they both play significant roles in the region. Then there’s Russia, China, and the U.S., all with vital (and competing) interests in the region. That’s quite a radioactive cocktail we’ve got there. Straight up, if you please. We can’t afford to have this one shaken or stirred.

The death knell for the conservative movement? I think not.

2006-11-14T13:36:00.000-05:00

In the week since the election, the talking heads on the left side of the political perspective have been gloating over the election results, as well as the so-called demise of conservatism in America. While I am admittedly happy about the results of the election, I certainly am not ready to put any nails into the coffin of the American conservative movement.

Even some on the right are suggesting a conservative implosion in this country. A former director and trustee of the National Review, Austin W. Bramwell, has a piece in the November 20th issue of The American Conservative entitled “Good-bye to All That - A former National Review trustee surveys the wreckage of contemporary conservatism.”

"Until recently, it has been almost impossible for me to speak candidly about the conservative movement, for it was my strange fate to serve as director and later trustee of the movement’s flagship journal, National Review. Earlier this year, at William F. Buckley’s request, I resigned both positions. I can therefore now declare what perhaps has oft been thought but never, at least not often enough, expressed. Notwithstanding conservatives’ belief that they, in contrast to their partisan opponents, have thought deeply about the challenges facing the United States, it is they who have become unserious."

Here’s a link to the article: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/cover.html

While I don’t share Mr. Bramwell’s pessimistic outlook on conservatism in America, I do find his analysis fascinating. And some of what he suggests falls along the lines of what many of us on the left have been saying for years – QUIT DRINKING THE KOOL-AID!

My personal opinion is that the recent elections, and the aftermath to come, do not necessarily represent the death of conservatism in America. I think this represents an opportunity for the leaders of the conservative movement to reflect, regroup, and refocus on where the movement is, and where it needs to be. Make no mistake though; conservatism has been dealt a major blow, and a self-inflicted one at that. How the conservative movement chooses to deal with it will determine whether it was a fatal one.

Great. Now don’t you dare blow it!

2006-11-08T11:50:00.000-05:00

Last night’s elections were a victory for the Democrats to be sure, but more importantly, they were a victory for America. In my opinion, balanced government is better government. And oversight is a very good thing. Perhaps, just perhaps, we will now have a chance to right some of the wrongs that have occurred in recent years.

The Democratic Party has an opportunity here. And damnit, you’d better not blow it. Cause if you guys screw up, you won’t have to worry about the Republicans holding your feet to the flames. You need to worry about people like me.

When the do-nothing, goose-stepping Republican Congress was taking a dump on the American people, I was shouting from the rooftops. If the Democrats follow suit, I’m gonna shout even louder. And so are countless Americans just like me.

I think the American people demonstrated yesterday that they are sick and fed up with “business as usual” in Washington, as well as in statehouses all over this country. We sent a message that it’s high time that our elected representatives start actually representing OUR interests, rather than their own, or those of their party.

So Democrats, celebrate your victory, but don’t gloat. Republicans, learn the lessons of this midterm election, so that you can right your ship and clean your house. But come January, the time for kissing and crying is over. It’ll be time to get back to work. THE PEOPLE’S WORK.

I’ve got one word for you… VOTE.

2006-11-03T12:11:00.000-05:00

There’s so much I could say. I could go on and on about the scandals, about the hypocrisy, about the failed policies, about the divisive tactics, about the lack of progress on countless important issues, etc. But that’s not what this post is about.

We live in a truly great nation. In my opinion, the greatest in the history of human civilization. And one of the things that makes our country so great is that we, as citizens, have the ability to determine the future direction of our nation. Or at least, that’s the way it’s supposed to work. But it doesn’t work that way if we don’t do our part.

Decisions are made by those that show up. It is not only our right; it is our responsibility to participate in the democratic process. If you don’t like the government you have, then do your part to change it. Because if you sit on your hands, and do nothing but complain about what you don’t like, or what you don’t agree with; then you are part of the problem. So do your homework, educate yourself, and vote.

I don’t care what your political persuasion is. You may agree with me on the issues, on the candidates, or you may not. You may think I’m brilliant, or a raving lunatic. On this one issue, our similarities and our differences are immaterial. Whether we agree or disagree, we should ALL participate this coming Tuesday, and exercise our Constitutional right, and our civic duty, and VOTE.

“Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.” - George Jean Nathan

“If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.” – Aristotle

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” - Thomas Jefferson

And now for something completely different...

2006-10-25T09:33:00.000-04:00

Right-wing uber-blowhard Rush Limbaugh has now come to the conclusion that Michael J. Fox is faking his Parkinson’s symptoms for dramatic effect. And this just in…

News Flash….

Through his amazing powers of observation and deduction, Rush has discovered more of those bleeding-heart-liberal-pinko-commie-tree-huggin-latte-sippin-vegetarian fakers…

Max Cleland… Faking it. C’mon Max, pretending to lose both legs was bad enough, but adding the arm too? WAY over the top.

Stephen Hawking… Faking it. And by the way Stephen, we know you’re faking being smart too – everybody knows that the computer gizmo that talks for you is the smart one.

Christopher Reeve… Faking it. Faked his death too. He’s now living off of his life insurance money in the Bahamas with Marilyn Monroe. Yep, she faked it too.

John F. Kennedy… Faked it. Oliver Stone provided him with an F/X exploding head in the hopes that he could make a conspiracy theory movie someday.

Sherrod Brown... He's faking being white. EVERYBODY knows that with a name like Sherrod, he HAS to be a black man.

In all seriousness folks, what else would we expect from the likes of an absolute idiot like Rush Limbaugh? Hey Rushie… I think you’re due for another dose of Oxycontin.

I had a mother-in-law who had Parkinson’s disease. Quite frankly, this latest ridiculous comment by Limbaugh is an insult to anyone with Parkinson’s, and to anyone with a loved one with this dreadful disease. You can’t “fake” those movements, it’s simply not possible. In fact, I salute Mr. Fox’s courage for being willing to stand in front of the cameras to champion the cause of stem cell research even while he’s fighting the tell-tale tremors of the medication used for this tragic ailment.

And yet, even after this clown makes such a despicable comment, we will have a large chunk of the country that will continue to listen to this hateful, ignorant, intolerant idiot. Parkinson’s, tragically, is often a terminal disease. Chronic stupidity, alas, never is.

Counterpoint....

2006-10-20T11:18:00.000-04:00

At long last, I have a few rebuttal comments to Squire’s recent post. It doesn’t cover every point of contention, but it’s a good start.

Minimum wage… “Why should we pay young people well?” Well, if you consider $7/hr. paying someone “well”, I have this really great bridge for sale…. No, I’m not suggesting paying the young, or the old, or the poorly qualified “well”. I’m suggesting that we make sure that they can survive in the real world. Have you forgotten what it was like to struggle paycheck to paycheck? I haven’t. As for the idea, “Let the market determine wages.” No thanks, not at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society. I just don’t think “the market” is looking out for the best interests of those they consider “expenses”, rather than what employees really are, a company’s most valuable asset.

Energy independence… “Does this mean we can drill in ANWR now?” You can drill in the ANWR until you’re blue in the face, it WILL NOT solve the problem. Petroleum is not the solution. As we’ve seen for the past 30+ years in this country, petroleum IS THE PROBLEM. Let’s try thinking outside the box for a change.

Global warming… As for your point “OK – it’s a fact; based on 200 years of data on a subject that unfolds over a geologic time scale.” You are absolutely right. So what? Can we agree that based upon the latest widely accepted scientific research, burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment? Why is it that conservatives seem to feel that it’s not necessary to address an issue until it reaches crisis proportions? Here’s a concept – be proactive, rather than reactive, regarding an issue of the common good; rather than only applying that approach when waging war.

Campaign reform… “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.” Again, so what???? It doesn’t make it right. So, you’re saying, “that’s just the way it is”????? I’m sorry; I refuse to accept resignation when it comes to the corruption so rampant in our representative government. As for the comment “when the Founders, your radical buddies, wrote ‘We the people…’ they were referring to adult, white, male, property holders.” Well, I think we’ve certainly addressed that little oversight. And it was a Republican who got the ball rolling on that one – thank you, Abe. Are you suggesting we go back to “the good old days”?

Integrity of the election system… “You can not contest every single national election just because your candidate does not win.” I am not suggesting that, and you know it. I am referring to the specific actions that were taken by Republican operatives to “steer” elections in a particular direction. My guy has lost many times, and I haven’t cried foul. This is different, and it makes me sick. Try reading RFK Jr’s article in Rolling Stone. I have yet to hear anyone on the right effectively contradict the evidence he lays out.

Social Security solvency… “What about privatization?” Quite frankly, what about it? You want to implement privatization for those who are interested, go for it. But it DOES NOT address the solvency issue of the Soc. Security trust fund. Period. Apples and oranges my friend.

Well the one thing that I discovered in looking at the recent exchange between Country Squire and myself is some of the general philosophical differences between your typical conservative/Republican and your typical liberal/Democrat. I guess it boils down to the fact that we just look at things differently.

My observation of those differences looks like this:

A conservative would prefer to maintain the status quo, rather than risk a change.

A liberal would like to change the things that are obviously (to them) not working.

A conservative will tell you, “That’s the way things are. Get used to it.”

A liberal will tell you, “This is the way things should be. Let’s make it happen.”

You conservatives are realists. And that’s a good thing.

We liberals are idealists. And that’s a good thing too.

I’m not suggesting either view is right or wrong, good or bad. Just different. In the final analysis, having both perspectives active and viable has served our country well for the past 200+ years. It truly is a set of checks and balances that, unfortunately, the Republicans have desperately tried to erode in recent years through one-party control of our government.

Well that “status quo” is about to change come November. And the Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves. “That’s the way things are. Get used to it.”

And the discussion continues...

2006-10-16T09:28:00.000-04:00

Well, the debate continues on the many issues facing our nation.

Country Squire has posted his response to my list of ideas from the left side of the political spectrum. And it's nice to see that we agree on many items. Of course, we have some difference in opinion on the whys and the wherefores. Ah, the devil's in the details, as always.

I'll be posting some rebuttals on these items very soon. In the meantime, here are Squire's comments:

1. Raise the minimum wage.
Answer: I disagree. “Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth of workers earning at or below the minimum wage were age 16-19. Among employed teenagers, about 9 percent earned $5.15 or less. About 2 percent of workers age 25 and over earned the minimum wage or less. Among those age 65 and over, the proportion was about 3 percent.” This isn’t my opinion – this comes from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers 2005. Why should we pay young people well? Are we discriminating against them because they are young, have no experience and do not bring much in the way of ability to the table? Let the market determine wages.

2. Make education a top priority in our country.
Answer: I agree.Our nation’s schools are in an abysmal state – agreed. Then let’s implement standardized curriculum and testing across the county so that anyone who tests at or above a 3.5 GPA gets a free ride to college. And any school that is not performing to acceptable standards gets closed or preferably, burned to the ground. Can you say school vouchers? And let’s not forget Ted Kennedy’s involvement in “No Child Left Behind”. "Senator Kennedy has also been a leader in the fight to close the $17 billion gap between funding provided so far by the Administration and Congress and the resources necessary to get the job done.
"We strongly believe that in order to make the No Child Left Behind law work, more fundamental changes will have to be made. The law continues to evaluate student and school progress on just a 'snapshot'—two tests taken once a year—and it fails to measure growth in individual student achievement over time.”
So says the NEA, the single largest roadblock to implementing this act. Two tests taken once a year – exactly how often do you think we would be “testing for growth in individual student achievement over time”? And could we really do it for a mere $17 billion? Not to mention, do you think it would eventually show what a sham the public school system in this country really is – and that the NEA bears a great deal of the blame? Please do not misunderstand me; I have a great deal of respect for some teachers. But what I have a problem with is a union that fights monitoring of results which shields their membership at the expense of our children.

3. Make our nation TRULY energy independent.
Answer: I agree.
It is definitely a matter of nation security; we have the technology and the people. And I know because you’re one of them. Does this mean we can drill in ANWR now? I mean, since it’s a national security issue and we have the technology and the people and everything…..

4. Take global warming seriously, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!
Answer: PPPLLLLLEEEEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEE. I disagree.
OK – it’s a fact; based on 200 years of data on a subject that unfolds over a geologic time scale. Thirty years ago every scientist was convinced we were going into the next ice age. Now it’s global warming. Please make up my mind.
“Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"
Gore showed computer-generated projections of ocean water rushing in to submerge the San Francisco Bay Area, New York City, parts of China, India and other nations, should ice shelves in Antarctica or Greenland melt and slip into the sea.”
I’ll give the planet San Francisco and New York City if I can still drive my SUV. And as for cigarette smoking being a "significant contributor to global warming!" as Jocelyn Elders, the Clinton appointed US Surgeon General once said “You’ve gotta die of something.”

5. Require a balanced federal budget, period.
Answer: I agree but with provisions.
I am not convinced a constitutional amendment could/should correct this problem. And yes – it is rich, that you, a Democrat would suggest one. As for it being simple math – I’m not so convinced. Both parties have shown a complete lack of regard for our children and grandchildren when it comes to disciplined spending. The only difference here is one of emphasis; historically, Republicans spend more on the military at the expense of domestic programs and the Democrats offer the opposite. But pork remains king.

6. Implement serious campaign finance reforms.
Answer: I disagree.
Money is the mother’s milk of politics. Public financing of elections – surely you jest. I’ve got a great idea – let’s tax ourselves to let these idiots run for office!!!! What a wonderful trough that would be!!!!
Anyway, I thought McCain-Feingold fixed all of this.
By the way, interestingly enough, when the Founders, your radical buddies, wrote “We the people…” they were referring to adult, white, male, property holders.

7. Establish trade policies that protect American jobs.
Answer: I agree with provisions.
Our economy is changing from a manufacturing to a service economy. It concerns me a great deal since I work for a manufacturing oriented company. But the fact remains that we are increasingly moving to a service based economy - and as with the change from an agricultural to a manufacturing economy, some people inevitably get hurt in the process. We do need to keep certain industries (i.e. steel, auto) if for no other reason than national defense considerations. But our children need to be concentrating their efforts on the post industrial jobs of the future not following in their parents footsteps and going to work in the mill. If you have not already done so, read Thomas Friedman’s book “The World Is Flat”.

8. Take some serious steps address nuclear and WMD proliferation.
Answer: I agree.
But the real question is how. This could be a huge discuss all by itself. See my post on North Korea for starters.

9. Make the election system in our country above reproach.
Answer: I agree with provisions.
And if you think that our election process is flawed, you should watch the rest of the world try to do what we have been doing for over 200 years – the peaceful transfer of power via the ballot box.

These sour grapes have turned to vinegar. We have had close elections before. In 1960 the question was “How many times can a dead person vote in Chicago, Illinois?” The answer was “As many times as it takes to make Jack Kennedy president.” For the good of the country, did Richard Nixon contest the election – no. But in 2000 Al Gore did and so did his army of lawyers. Gore won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College. If you don’t like that election system then work to change it; but, like it or not, we have been using it to elect presidents in this country for a long time. Strangely enough, people tend to forget that the mid-term elections of 2002 were a pick up for the Republicans when, historically, they should not have won.

In 2004 you just plain lost. Get over it. “The fact remains that the American people are questioning the integrity of the very system that insures that their voices are heard and their interests are represented.” Wrong. Less than half of the people are because the person they voted for was not elected. You can not contest every single national election just because your candidate does not win.

However, if someone is actually caught circumventing the election laws then let’s make an example of them and put them in front of a firing squad. But if you are not bright enough to figure out where you are supposed to vote, what voter registration is all about, what kind of ID you might need and how a butterfly ballot or an electronic voting machine works – don’t complain – you probably aren’t doing the Republic a great service by casting a ballot either. And leave the lawyers at home.

10. Insure the solvency on the social security system, for generations to come.
Answer: I agree.
What exactly was the Democrats plan for Social Security reform when they decided they didn’t want President Bush to reform it? The President came out and said there was plenty to worry about in regards to Social Security and showed it would go bankrupt. What about privatization? Nope, can’t do that; we’re not smart enough. Give me the money the government is taking from me and let me invest it. I’ll be just fine.

And as for retirement – I am glad to hear you have nothing to worry about. But turning our backs on the less fortunate? Come on. Social Security was never meant to be a retirement plan. When President Roosevelt put it together you had to be 65 years old to qualify – which happens to have been older than the average person lived to be at the time.

Let's talk ideas...

2006-10-09T12:45:00.000-04:00

As promised, I’m putting out some ideas from the left side of the aisle (or at least from one man’s left-leaning perspective). Here they are, in no particular order. I’ll keep my comments on each item to a minimum… just a few words (OK, maybe several) to stress my take on these things.

1. Raise the minimum wage.
Should a family of four be able to survive on one person earning minimum wage? No. But should a young person, just getting started? Absolutely.

2. Make education a top priority in our country.
Our nation’s schools are in an abysmal state. We are short-changing our nation’s future. If you think, “no child left behind” is the solution, fine. Then fund it damnit!

3. Make our nation TRULY energy independent.
This is more than just good policy; it is a matter of national security. We have some outstanding scientists and engineers in this country (I know, I’m one of them :-) ), we CAN do this.

4. Take global warming seriously, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!
This is not theory, this is not an opinion, this does not require “further study” to verify. This is a fact. No, it’s not some commie-leftwing-treehugger-antiestablishment conspiracy to kill big oil. The science bears this out. It’s time we thought of the future of our planet, rather than just the future of one political party or their corporate contributors.

5. Require a balanced federal budget, period.
A constitutional amendment perhaps? Yes, you heard me, a Democrat advocating for an amendment that the federal budget be balanced. It’s simple math. We’ve gone from the largest budget surplus in history to the largest deficit in history. We cannot continue down this road. Our children and our grandchildren are going to inherit enough of the problems we’ve created. They don’t need to be in perpetual debt as well.

6. Implement serious campaign finance reforms.
Public financing of elections? Maybe. A serious cap on soft money? Perhaps. But the point is, our democracy should not be for sale to the highest bidder. It’s “We the People”, not “We the Corporations”. Pay to play doesn’t seem consistent with “promote the general welfare”.

7. Establish trade policies that protect American jobs.
I’m not suggesting that we isolate ourselves. I’m not suggesting that corporations shouldn’t be able to turn a profit. But somehow, some way, we need to make it a priority to have decent, good-paying jobs for workers right here in the U.S. of A. If we keep outsourcing our jobs, we might as well start outsourcing the consumers as well. Because eventually, there won’t be anyone left here who can even afford the cheap Chinese products at Wal-Mart.

8. Take some serious steps address nuclear and WMD proliferation.
The greatest threat to our civilization continues to be a man-made threat. This isn’t just some tree-huggin’ nonuke freak talking here. Even dubya is concerned with the spread of WMDs. (too bad he can’t find any – yes, that was a cheap shot, and well-deserved) Given today’s verification of a nuclear North Korea, this issue is all the more relevant.

9. Make the election system in our country above reproach.
Forget about whether or not there were shenanigans in 2000 (which there were), or 2004 (ditto). The fact remains that the American people are questioning the integrity of the very system that insures that their voices are heard and their interests are represented. If we cannot insure the validity and transparency of the very foundation of our democracy, then the rest of our discussion is pointless.

10. Insure the solvency on the social security system, for generations to come.
Some on the right have argued that there is nothing to worry about, that the liberals are twisting this way out of proportion. Given the Republicans’ recent proclivity to spend this nation into oblivion, I couldn’t disagree more. Some of us are fortunate enough to not have to worry about whether social security will be there for us when we retire. That doesn’t mean we should turn our back on those who are not so fortunate.

And also as promised, Country Squire’s list of ideas from the right side of the political spectrum, as well as my thoughts on each item:

1.Win the war.
Which war? The war on terror (an interesting concept), or the war in Iraq? Cause contrary to what we have been told erroneously and repeatedly, they are NOT one and the same. My interpretation of the “war on terror” is the effort to defeat al Qaeda, their supporters, and those al Qaeda wannabe groups out there. This is a noble and just cause, and it should have been a war being waged for many, many years. As a matter of fact, the first volley fired at the U.S. in this war wasn’t on September 11, 2001, it was October 23, 1983. Remember the Marine barracks in Beirut? Where was the retaliation for that brutal attack? 241 U.S. service members killed, and STILL, to this day, nobody brought to justice. I believe that was on President Reagan’s watch? But I digress… The fact remains that Saddaam Hussein was not an ally of al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, he considered them a threat to his power in Iraq. So when you say, “win the war”, please tell me which one you are referring to. Because if it’s the “war on terra” you might want to take a look at what is happening in Afghanistan right now. We really dropped the ball on that one.

2. Cut taxes.
Ah yes, the famous Republican refrain… Everybody loves tax cuts, myself included. It’s a great platform to run on, even better when it means something. Unfortunately, the idea has lost all meaning; at least in the way it has been applied in this administration. Unless, of course you qualify as uber-wealthy, in which case the recent tax cuts are quite a windfall. As for me, someone in the upper middle class, I haven’t seen any significant benefit, and increases in my state and local taxes have made up for any modest federal tax savings I might have received. Tax cuts are great, if fairly applied, and if accompanied by rational spending on the part of the government. But the sad fact remains… at the end of the day, somebody has to pay for our government.

3. Install originalist judges on the Federal bench and the Supreme Court.
By “originalist”, do you mean a “constructionalist” (as Mr. Bush is so fond of calling them), a “textualist” (the words of the Constitution matter), or perhaps an “intentionalist” (the intentions of the framers matter)? There’s a difference. But I think we can agree that the purpose of the Judiciary is to interpret the laws, not make them (as Mr. Bush should be reminded that the purpose of the Executive is to execute the laws, not interpret them, or worse, ignore them – you DON’T want me to go there). Having said that, my personal preference is to favor intentionalists. While the Constitution was a remarkably well-written document, some of the phraseology used is antiquated, and really doesn’t always hold the same meaning in the context of the modern vernacular. I feel that the framer’s intentions should be the criteria for interpretation. The obvious dilemma there… how do you gauge the intentions of someone that has been dead for 200 years? We should remind ourselves of one intention of the framers of our Constitution that is strikingly clear… they intended it to be a living document that should evolve to fit the needs of an evolving nation.

4. Control illegal immigration.
Amen. This is likely to be something we will agree upon. We cannot begin to talk about “protecting the homeland” before we address the issue of securing our own borders. And this administration, as well as those before it, has done an abysmal job of making that a priority. The flow of illegals into this country will continue until we make the borders secure, and address the incentives that make illegal immigration worthwhile. And I mean the incentives on both sides of the border. We need to make it clear to Mexico that they must take their own responsibilities seriously, and address security on their side of the border, as well as addressing the economic conditions that lead to the mass exodus of their citizens. On our side of the Rio Grande, we need to clamp down on employers who are willing to ignore the laws regarding employment of illegals, and give those laws some real teeth. A fence is NOT the answer. Making crossing the border illegally not worth the risk should be the approach.

5. Reduce spending.
Wow. You sure you’re a Republican? I’m jesting, of course. Let me rephrase that… You sure Bush is a Republican? Or for that matter, the so-called Republicans in Congress? Cause they sure didn’t get the memo about the Republicans being the supposed party of fiscal responsibility. They are spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave in the P.I.’s Y’know, this issue reminds me of an interview that Larry King did with President Jimmy Carter in the mid-eighties… A caller phoned in and asked the former President, “So Mr. Carter, how does it feel to be the first President to bring the national debt above a trillion dollars?” You could almost see the shit-eating grin on the caller’s face, from the tone of his voice. President Carter paused, looked straight into the camera and said (I’m paraphrasing here), “Yes, I was the first President to preside over a trillion dollar national debt. And it took me and my thirty-eight predecessors to get it to that point. However, in the short time he has been in office, President Reagan has already more than doubled it.” Similarly, you could almost see the jaw drop on the arrogant caller. So much for fiscal responsibility. Yes, by all means, let’s cut spending. But let’s do it in a way that makes sense, not cuts just for the sake of cuts. The normal approach from the right is to cut social programs and “entitlements” first. God forbid we should address government waste, a bloated defense budget, or perpetuation of the good ol’ boys network in regards to awarding government contacts. (Can anyone say, “Halliburton”?) On this subject, I simply don’t have enough time to point out all the hypocrisy and outright thievery in the Republican’s approach to spending OUR tax dollars. Fiscal responsibility. What a concept.

I’d love to hear some thoughts and feedback on this exchange (especially you, Squire). Let’s keep the conversation going. Perhaps we truly can find some common ground in this polarized environment we find ourselves in.

A civil discourse, in an uncivilized world...

2006-10-08T12:49:00.000-04:00

An old and dear friend of mine was kind enough to remind me what this is all about the other day. He reminded me of what my original intent was when I started this whole thing.... A fair, open and truthful exchange of ideas. My thanks to you, Country Squire, for putting it back in some perspective for me.

It seems that in recent times, my passions have gotten the best of me. While my intentions have been to point out both the failings of this administration, it's apologists, and it's even more extreme "base"; as well as my own take on where we are, where we are going, and where we should be going; my posts have been unnecessarily incendiary, and that serves no one.

I will try to make it a point to ratchet down the thermostat on my rantings, and turn this blog of mine back into what I had originally intended, a dialogue, not a monologue.

In the meantime, I would encourage readers to check out Squire's blog as well. While you may, or may not agree with what he has to say, he does a much better job than the talking heads in eloquently expressing a viewpoint from the right. He can be found at http://country-squire.blogspot.com/ I'll have his site in my links from here on out.

I challenged Squire to offer up some real "ideas" from the right, since I've accused that side of the aisle of not really having any. He was kind enough to oblige, so I will in kind offer up some ideas from the dreaded "liberal"/"progressive" viewpoint, as well as offer up my take on his list. I'll post that in my next entry. I think this will be an interesting exchange of ideas, and I hope it will get people thinking about the issues.

Stay tuned...

"Move America Forward" sinks to new low... and that's saying something.

2006-10-04T10:22:00.000-04:00

My old buddy, Robert Dixon, the Executive Director for the slime machine known as "Move America Forward", was kind enough to send me an email outlining their newest slime campaign. Oops, a correction on the last sentence... he's now the "Acting" Executive Director. Apparently, he's been demoted from chief scumbag to acting chief scumbag.

Anyway, I'll save you the salacious details of the campaign, but here's the gist of it:

> > BILL CLINTON REBUKED!
> >
> > New Television Ad
> > Targets Bill Clinton's Failure
> > To Fight Terrorist Threat
> >
> > "No more rewriting history, Mr. President"
>

It's funny... while the Republican leadership is choosing to cover their collective asses on the Mark Foley scandal by saying "I didn't know nothin' about nothin'.", or even blaming the victims; or Faux News, who is erroneously & misleadingly putting a (D) next to Foley's name on their broadcasts; Move America Forward has chosen a much more traditional neocon tactic... misdirection.

Well, of course, I couldn't just let this one go without telling Mr. Dixon what I thought of his new ad campaign. Here's my response to him:

"Spreading lies again Robert? I'm surprised you're not blaming Clinton for Mark Foley's fall from grace...

Or perhaps that's what this is all about. Yep, right from the neocon playbook. When in doubt, misdirect."Pay no attention to the Republican pedophile behind the curtain. Oh! Look over there!"

It's too bad the Republicans and Conservatives don't actually have any real ideas to propose. Perhaps then they wouldn't spend so much time blaming others for their own failings.

So I'm curious Robert, when the neocons lose both houses of Congress this fall and the White House in '08, what's your fall-back plan? Selling Amway?

Cause you know that spewing rightwing lies and being the cheerleader for hate-mongering will no longer be a profitable vocation.

America is tired of you and your ilk Robert. They are tired of being lied to by the people who promised to protect them, who promised we could trust them. They are tired of the arrogance and the "win at all cost" mentality, irregardless of truth, common sense, and common decency. They are tired of our brave men and women coming home in body bags because the party in power is too proud and too stubborn to admit they screwed up.

That light you think you see at the end of the tunnel Bob... that the oncoming train known as the will of the American people. You see, one of the big differences between us progressives and you neocons is that you don't trust and you underestimate the American people. We, on the other hand have never lost faith in the greatest blessing our nation has... its wonderful citizens.

So full steam ahead Bob. Keep barreling down the tracks towards the light. Just remember what they say... it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end.

Sweet dreams Bob."

An addendum to this one... Someone had mentioned to me that Faux News putting a (D) next to Mark Foley's name was "news to them". Well here it is, in all it's glory:

Thanks to bradblog for that one.

"The Path to 9/11": The newest fantasy from Walt Disney Pictures

2006-09-08T13:10:00.000-04:00

This Sunday and Monday, (9/11) ABC plans on airing what can best be described as a work of fiction, loosely based on the events leading up to September 11, 2001. The “docudrama” entitled “The Path to 9/11”, was written by a rightwing nutjob, who apparently is good buddies with Rush Limbaugh. ABC claims this propaganda film is based upon the 9/11 commission report, yet members of the 9/11 commission have publicly stated that they have just “made things up”. Former members of the Clinton administration have even written ABC to express their outrage at the license Disney has taken with this production. Heck, even Bill Clinton himself was quoted as saying, “I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they're going to claim it's based on the 9/11 commission's report…They shouldn't have scenes that are directly contradictory to the factual findings of the 9/11 commission. I just want people to tell the truth."

In an effort to bring massive public pressure upon Disney to pull the plug on this partisan cartoon, organizations like ThinkProgress and MoveOn.org have started a campaign to sign petitions and send letters to Robert Iger, CEO of Disney, demanding they pull the plug on this rightwing revisionist “docudrama”. Let’s hope their efforts pay off.

Below is my letter to Disney’s CEO. It may never get read, but it made me feel better writing it, and knowing that I expressed my outrage regarding this partisan political stunt. I would encourage all people of good conscience to also contact Mr. Iger, and let him know that we don’t appreciate him using our airwaves to further his and his friends’ political agenda.

"Mr. Iger,

I am truly disappointed and disgusted that your company would choose to air an obviously partisan "docudrama" regarding the tragedy that our nation experienced on September 11,2001.

As we approach the fifth anniversary of this tragic event, it is certainly not a time for revisionist history being broadcast on the (may I remind you) PUBLIC airwaves. You don't own the airwaves, the people do. You have simply been granted access to them, and that access is NOT for the purpose of pushing a partisan political agenda.

The people WHO WERE THERE are taking exception to your slanted portrayal of the events leading up to 9/11. People of conscience like Madeleine Albright, Samuel Berger, Bruce Lindsey and Douglas Band, as well as the former President himself, Bill Clinton, have told you to quit lying and "get it right". I suggest you take their advice.

We live in the digital age now. Time was, if a company or organization offended me, I would tell a few of my friends. Now, thanks to the Internet, I can tell a few thousand of them. And that's what I, and many others intend on doing if you choose to broadcast this partisan fantasy on ABC this Sunday and Monday.

Disney is a company that has a reputation of providing family entertainment and being guided by family values. But I don't think that lying to the American people for political gain qualifies as a family value. Do you?

I hope you'll carefully rethink your decision to broadcast this "docudrama", or you and your company will take the time to make the changes to "get it right" before you transmit it across the people's airwaves. I'd like to believe you will do the right thing.

Sincerely..."

Isn’t it ironic…

2006-07-19T11:01:00.000-04:00

That our illustrious President has threatened to use his first veto to squash the hope of those suffering from debilitating illnesses and the hope of their loved ones, all based on an argument that turns out to be a LIE. But then again, why should we expect anything different from the regime that has given us a war based on questionable intelligence, environmental policy based on questionable science, and fiscal policy based on questionable accounting.

In a vote yesterday, that most certainly reflected the will of the American people, the Senate passed a measure to expand embryonic stem cell research by a vote of 63-37. Unfortunately, that majority falls 4 votes shy of the 67 needed to override a promised Presidential veto. President Bush and his ilk have argued that this bill would amount to destroying human life. His propaganda minister, Tony Snow stated, “The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong… The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research." What the administration fails to mention is that the embryos in question are unused specimens created for in-vitro fertilization purposes, and will be destroyed by the fertility clinics anyway. But of course our decider-in-chief never lets the truth get in the way of playing to his religious fanatic base.

Stem cells, the “master” cells that can transform into any type of cell in the body, are considered to be the philosopher’s stone when it comes to potential treatments for countless diseases and injuries. These cells have the potential to literally “grow” into replacement organs, replace diseased tissue, and provide the cures to various forms of cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and spinal chord injuries. Even the government’s own National Institutes of Health recognizes the promise of stem cell research:

“Studies of human embryonic stem cells may yield information about the complex events that occur during human development. A primary goal of this work is to identify how undifferentiated stem cells become differentiated. Scientists know that turning genes on and off is central to this process. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell division and differentiation. A better understanding of the genetic and molecular controls of these processes may yield information about how such diseases arise and suggest new strategies for therapy. A significant hurdle to this use and most uses of stem cells is that scientists do not yet fully understand the signals that turn specific genes on and off to influence the differentiation of the stem cell.

Human stem cells could also be used to test new drugs. For example, new medications could be tested for safety on differentiated cells generated from human pluripotent cell lines. Other kinds of cell lines are already used in this way. Cancer cell lines, for example, are used to screen potential anti-tumor drugs. But, the availability of pluripotent stem cells would allow drug testing in a wider range of cell types. However, to screen drugs effectively, the conditions must be identical when comparing different drugs. Therefore, scientists will have to be able to precisely control the differentiation of stem cells into the specific cell type on which drugs will be tested. Current knowledge of the signals controlling differentiation fall well short of being able to mimic these conditions precisely to consistently have identical differentiated cells for each drug being tested.

Perhaps the most important potential application of human stem cells is the generation of cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue, but the need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis.”

Yet our President has decided that rather than pursue the promising potential of this next great medial technology, he will apply fanatic religious ideology to place roadblocks in the way of potentially lifesaving research. Of course, for political cover, the President and his cronies will say that they still support research into adult stem cells, and work done with existing stem cell lines. But as with everything else involving this administration’s narrow view of the world, it’s all smoke and mirrors to make them look less like the narrow-minded ideologues that they really are.

In the end, this is about saving lives, not destroying life. And the administration knows it. But they don’t want the American people to know that. They want to preach their “culture of life” propaganda while pursuing a “culture of death” ideology. And as always, I think they are underestimating the intelligence of the American people. Most of us are smart enough to see through the B.S. of their sound bites and see the hateful and spiteful heart of their actions, or lack thereof. And for those out there who can’t see through it… Time to wake up and smell the manure.

After all, the ones who could benefit from this science could be your parents, your grand parents, your children, your grand children, or even you and I. And the cost? Utilizing existing cells that would otherwise be destroyed. So you have to ask yourself, isn’t it worth it?

A Brief Hiatus

2006-07-13T08:51:00.000-04:00

For those of you who have recently stopped by the blog, wondering whether I've dropped off the face of the earth... First off, thanks for checking out the blog. Secondly, no, I haven’t been kidnapped by aliens, or the Bush regime, I’ve simply been incredibly busy. Between work and home and some major shtuff I got going on right now, the blog has been pushed to the back burner.

Don’t worry, I’ll be back to it soon enough. Lord knows I’ve got lots more to say about so much that is going on in the world today. But right now, the real world takes precedent over the virtual world.

So, in the meantime, keep working, keep fighting, keep seeking the truth, and keep the faith. Our country needs us, now more than ever, and for the sake of what lies beyond that horizon, we all need to answer the call.

So, until my next post (hopefully soon), take care and God bless.

Marlipern

The Bush policy: If we ignore the problem of North Korea, perhaps it will just go away.

2006-07-06T11:57:00.000-04:00

After three years and 2500 U.S. casualties, it seems clear that the primary reason for invading Iraq, the WMD threat, did not exist. Yet during that same period, North Korea has repeatedly defied the international community in their actions and rhetoric regarding their nuclear weapon and missile programs, and the United States has done virtually nothing to deter or reverse this trend. So my question to President Bush is this: How do you reconcile your administration’s apparent policy of going after the wrong dictator, and what is your plan to address the real and growing threat of a nuclear North Korea?

Cause it sure looks to me like dubya has no plan to deal with North Korea, nor apparently, any intention to develop one. Is this another case of a .22 caliber mind trying to wrap itself around a .357 magnum world? Curious (and deeply concerned) minds want to know. Here’s a hint George, you’re not playing “Risk”, you’re in the real world, and you’re supposed to be making real world decisions. Or didn’t your daddy tell you what being President was all about – wait, I forgot, there’s a “higher father.” (BTW, I have to give credit where credit is due – the gun reference was paraphrased from a West Wing episode.)

Several Republicans have pointed the finger at the Clinton administration, suggesting that this whole mess was somehow Clinton’s fault. I’d like to point out to these pass-the-buck Republicans that during Clinton’s watch, IAEA inspectors were on the ground in North Korea. On Clinton’s watch, NO NEW FISSIONABLE MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED by North Korea (unlike during this, or daddy Bush’s admin.). During Clinton’s administration, there was a moratorium on missile testing by the North Koreans, which they adhered to. But most importantly, on Clinton’s watch, there was a dialogue between the United States and North Korea. You know, “diplomacy”. You might want to try it sometime. Oh, and while you’re at it, stick to being obsessed with Clinton’s penis, cause your hero dubya’s administration can’t come close to matching the real accomplishments of the Clinton admin.

Of course there are some on the left who have suggested that perhaps the admin. wants this crisis to escalate, to drum up oil prices, and to sell the American people on the oh-so-stale “Republicans are tough guys” reputation in advance of the fall elections. Personally, I think that’s giving this crowd way too much credit, given their track record of botching just about every scheme they try to pull off.

So here we are. In the real world, dealing with a REAL WMD threat in North Korea. This is the time that the Bush administration can once and for all show that they’ve got what it takes to sit at the adult table. Cause up until now, this crowd has demonstrated that they are rank amateurs when dealing with real world diplomacy. Saber rattling isn’t going to do it this time. “Wanted dead or alive” or “bring it on” isn’t going to do it. We need solid, competent leadership and skilled diplomatic skills to deal with this serious issue. And what do we have? Dubya and company. God help us all.

A small victory in an undoubtedly ongoing battle.

2006-06-30T12:58:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court apparently rediscovered their Constitutional mandate to interpret the Constitution, and participate in the checks and balances upon the other two branches of our government. In a 5-3 decision, with Chief Justice Roberts recusing himself, the court ruled that President Bush had overstepped his authority in applying military tribunals to a so-called “enemy combatant” by the name of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, held in Guantanamo Bay. The court did; however, seem to leave the door open to allow Congress to provide the President with even more wartime powers, which might render this ruling moot.

The spineless administration lapdogs in Congress wasted no time jumping on that opportunity, and made it a point to “spin” the discussion in that direction. Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee said Thursday that he would sponsor legislation after the Holiday break that would authorize the military tribunals.” To keep America safe in the war on terror, I believe we should try terrorists only before military commissions, not in our civilian courts," said Frist. Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, has offered to work with the White House on legislation that would allow the administration to try the Guantanamo prisoners before a military tribunal. "The court said that military commissions would be proper if Congress blessed those commissions -- that the president by himself could not do this, that he had to come to Congress and get the Congress to bless the military tribunal. I agree with that. I think it would be better off if the Congress and the White House work together to pass a statute that would allow these terrorists to be tried in a military court."

So, given the direction this seems to be going, the obvious question to the Congress is, are we willing to legislate the violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice by our government? Because that was one of the salient points of the Supreme Court ruling - "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions."

In effect, if the Congress passes legislation that gives the President the authority to convene such military tribunals for detainees such as Hamdan, we will be in violation of a treaty that we were a signatory to, as well as the “rules of the road” for military justice that we, ourselves, established. And the next obvious question becomes, what other laws, codes and international treaties are we willing to abandon in the name of national security? And what, may I ask, is the benefit of “national security” if we have now become a nation no longer bound by the rule of law?

I am truly encouraged by yesterday’s ruling by the Supreme Court. But my hope is somewhat tempered by the possibility that the Congress will take action that flies in the face of what the Justices were trying to say. Here’s a hint folks… this isn’t the way our founding fathers envisioned the evolution of our republic. And to continue to abandon the principles which they and the many that have followed them, have fought and in some cases, died to protect, would be a treason to their memory. On the eve of the Fourth of July Holiday, celebrating our great nation’s 230th birthday, that is a truly sad thought.

A major change in my philosophy.

2006-06-28T12:14:00.000-04:00

It’s quite ironic that I owe some of my recent changes in philosophy and ideology to the current U.S. administration, whose politics, policies, and tactics I hold in complete and utter contempt (those of you who have read the blog will find this as no surprise). As a matter of fact, and in no small measure, my impetus for starting this blog, and my recent increased interest in politics and government, I owe to the Bush administration as well. If it wasn’t for this regime’s blatant and repetitive abuse of executive power, their total disregard for the Constitution and the laws of the U.S., and their complete hypocrisy on issues too numerous to name, I’d probably still be your typical, fat, dumb and happy American citizen, with only a passing interest in the political process.

And I’m sure I’m not alone in this. I’m sure there are many of us out there, who have had it “up to here” with the perversion of the American political system for the benefit of corporate and special interests. I recognize that this is not a new problem, and that the system was broken long before Buchco took office. However, this administration has taken the raping of the American political system to a new level. They have gone far beyond just making big bucks for themselves and their corporate buddies by manipulating the system. They have taken advantage of an unspeakable human tragedy to forward their own warped agenda, and used the tactics of fear and paranoia to justify and expand all of the crimes and abuses they have committed. And this forum in cyberspace has offered those of us in the mostly silent majority a venue to say loud and clearly, “enough is enough.”

So, thank you George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, and all the others in your criminal cabal, for giving me the inspiration to get involved and rage against your despicable betrayal of the American people to serve your own selfish ends. Your treason has helped so many of us put into sharp focus what is truly important to our nation and our world. You may have actually saved democracy in America… by trying to kill it. Time will tell.

And I also owe a debt to this regime for my recent change in position on another important issue, labor unions. Time was, I was no fan of organized labor in this country. While my view was contrary to that of most of my fellow Democrats, I had always felt that labor unions did a disservice to our country, making it much more difficult to compete in a global market. I also felt that while at one time in our history, unions served a vital role by protecting workers rights, today, there are more than enough government safeguards in place to assure the safety and welfare of our nation’s workforce. I can see now that my position on the subject was wrong.

While higher union wages may make American products more expensive than their Asian counterparts, there is something to be said for quality, and consumers ARE willing to pay a premium for it. Over an above that, the idea that American wages are too high is most certainly the wrong way to look at things. We should be working on raising the bar for third world countries, not lowering the bar for ours. What advocates of cheap labor don’t seem to realize is that in the end, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Increasing pay scales to a real “living wage” will produce more consumers capable of affording the products that are being produced, which in the end, is good for labor and management alike. Keeping wages down may be beneficial to corporate interests in the short term; it will adversely affect the overall health of the economy in the long run. Corporate America needs to stop being so shortsighted.

And it’s obvious that we are going backwards as far as worker protections are concerned. This administration has repeatedly hired the fox to guard the hen house when it comes to assuring worker safety and welfare. Our government places coal executives in charge of mine safety, nuclear industry executives in charge of nuclear power plant safety, oil executives in charge of emissions standards, pharmaceutical executives in charge of drug safety. You get the idea. Not to mention that this administration has been actively involved in union-busting tactics within and without the structure of our government. As a matter of fact, a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia admonished the administration’s Department of Homeland Security for it’s efforts to squelch union representation within it’s ranks. The Court stated, "The government's position not only defies the well-understood meaning of collective bargaining, it also defies common sense." Here’s an article on the ruling:

DHS Ruling Deals Administration a Setback

And then there’s the issue of the minimum wage. Last week, Congress decides to vote itself a pay raise. This week, they decide NOT to increase the minimum wage, leaving workers at this pay scale $6000 BELOW the poverty line. It’s OK for fat, lazy politicians to line their own pockets, but God forbid an entry level worker should be able to put food on the table for his family.

It’s obvious to me that this administration specifically, and our federal government in general, are no friend of the working man these days. The American workforce needs a voice, an advocate, looking out for their best interests. And who better to do so that the same people who have been doing it for over a century – America’s labor unions. We need our unions, now more than ever, if for no other reason than the very survival of working class America.

More election year bloviating on the part of our elected representatives.

2006-06-27T12:26:00.000-04:00

And, as with all the other posturing that has gone on during this Congressional session, this is purely for show, is a waste of valuable legislative time and tax dollars, and in the end, does more to divide our country than unite it. So, given the nature of this administration, and this do-nothing Congress, it’s just what the doctor ordered.

Yes indeed, in a stroke of pure political genius, our elected representatives have proposed (again) a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, or more specifically, “the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” The scary part is that this ridiculous legislation has a chance of passing this time.

Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has established the precedent that banning the burning of state flags is unconstitutional, and that the proposed amendment is in apparent direct conflict with the much more important first amendment, Congressmen and Senators have jumped on the political bandwagon to support this travesty. That includes many Democrats, proving once again that they are willing to be the nation’s chickenshits to complement their Republican chickenhawk counterparts.

I mean, God forbid our elected representatives should stand up for the Constitution. Certainly not in an election year. No, it seems to me that legislators of all political persuasion are losing their backbones and taking a “cut and run” attitude… They’re cutting up the constitution and running for re-election.

A few voices of dissent (and reason) have surfaced to remind the rest of our representatives that they have a responsibility to their constituents over and above their desire to get re-elected. Sen. Patrick Leahy stated, "The First Amendment never needs defending when it comes to popular speech… It's when it comes to unpopular speech that it needs defending." Even a Republican, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, showed a level of moral fortitude sadly lacking within most of the ruling party: "I think the First Amendment has served us well for over 200 years. I don't think it needs to be altered”.

If this amendment passes, it will demonstrate once again, that the prevailing philosophy in Washington is, as summed up so succinctly by our President, that “the Constitution is just a piece of paper.” And apparently, as far as Congress is concerned, not worth the paper it is printed on. And it looks like we’re in good company when it comes to outlawing flag burning. Currently, there are only three nations on the planet that outlaw the burning of their national flag… Cuba, China, and Iran. See any similarities here?

They’re grasping at straws again. How sad.

2006-06-22T13:07:00.000-04:00

The Republican Senate spinmeister dujour, Sen. Rick Santorum of PA, held a press conference yesterday to announce to the world (or at least the portion of the world that actually gives a crap about his rantings), that “hundreds” of WMDs have been found in Iraq. Santorum, referring to rusting shells buried near the Iran border for well over 15 years, insisted, “Clearly, we went to war due to WMD. The contents of these shells are still hazardous potentially lethal, which qualifies them as WMD. Because, even if the shells, themselves, can't be fired, the contents remains hazardous and able to maim and kill - an effective WMD”

Never mind the fact that the defense department has already debunked the claim, stating, “these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.” Never mind the fact that Santorum was actually taken to task on this by none other than Faux News’ Alan Colmes. Colmes told the Senator “Senator, the Iraq Survey Group — let me go to the Duelfer Report — says that Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded.”

Still, Santorum defended his claims, flying in the face of the reality of the situation, which, given that we’re talking about Rick Santorum, should be no surprise to anyone. And the right wing bloggers have been coming to Santorum’s defense. They are absolutely giddy, thinking they have discovered the “holy grail” that will prop up their sagging house of cards. They are so desparate for this to be true that they are unwilling to face the reality that this administration lied to get us into a war of their chosing, to benefit their corporate masters and further their irrational ideology that the United States should be an empire, not a Republic.

In the end, this is just sad. It’s sad that we have a political party that is more interested in “winning” than being right. It’s sad that they are unwilling to let go of their fallacious claims, even in light of undisputable evidence to the contrary. It's sad that there are those willing to defend and support this ridiculous misadventure in Iraq, despite how obviously unjust, illegal and downright wrong it is. But what is most sad is that this is the party that is running our government right now, and running our country into the ground.

I've said it before, I'll say it again... Blindly following those that would lead you to your own destruction doesn't make you righteous, it simply makes you stupid.

Our elected “representatives” in Washington seem to be more interested in representing their corporate masters than their true constituents.

2006-06-21T14:26:00.000-04:00

Just last week, Congress was kind enough to vote themselves a pay raise, bringing their salaries to nearly $170,000. You may not have heard about that – after all, they did a pretty good job of keeping it quiet. Today, Congress will be playing politics with a proposed increase in the federal minimum wage, with the Republicans using tactics guaranteed to make sure it gets voted down.

The Democrats in the Senate are proposing an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15/hr. to $7.25/hr. Republicans in the Senate are using a parliamentary tactic to require 60 votes to pass, guaranteeing it won't, and offering their own bill to increase the wage to $6.25/hr. while reducing overtime pay. Just to make sure their own bill won’t pass, the Republicans are attaching abortion legislation onto their bill, along with tax breaks for employers.

In the House, our lawmakers are taking an even simpler approach – they’re refusing to allow the bill come to the House floor.

This is an absolute travesty. The men and women we have sent to Washington, ESPECIALLY the Republicans, are, as always, putting corporate interests ahead of the interests of working families in this country. They seem to be of the opinion that the Constitution starts with the words “We the Corporations” or “We the Campaign Contributors”, rather than “We the People”. When are we going to demand that our elected officials start respecting their constituents?

And to all you working-class Republicans out there who keep supporting your corrupt, arrogant, insincere, elitist representatives... The next time you have to choose between making the car or the house payment or putting food on the table, the next time you decide you can't afford a well-deserved family vacation, the next time you have to tell your kids, "mommy and daddy can't afford that", the next time you have to tell your kids they're gonna have to wait one more year to go to college; just remember, you did this to yourselves by supporting these clowns and sending them back to Congress year after year after year.

For once, put the good of your country before loyalty to your party. It's called being a patriot - you might try it sometime.

Apparently, someone woke up the mainstream media.

2006-06-20T11:06:00.000-04:00

Last night, much to my surprise, the ABC show “Nightline” broadcast a piece about the so-called “Tipton three”, three young British men of Arab descent, who were in U.S. custody for nearly 2 ½ years, the majority of that time at the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Why was I surprised? Because it’s not like the mainstream media to broadcast stories about the true horrors of the so-called “global war on terror”. Perhaps the media shills for this administration are just trying to get “ahead of the story” on these young men, since there will be a movie coming out on June 23rd that documents their ordeal. I hope I’m wrong about that.

Here’s an article on their story.

Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed, and Asif Iqbal were apparently simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and of the wrong ethnicity. These three friends, who made their home in Tipton, England, had traveled to Pakistan in the fall of 2001. During their visit, they answered the call of a cleric at a local mosque to help provide humanitarian aid to neighboring Afghanistan. In route between Kandahar and Kabul, the three became trapped in the middle of fighting between Northern Alliance forces and the Taliban. They were captured in November of 2001 and turned over to U.S. forces, who, after a month of holding them in Kandahar, transported them to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

During their detention at the gulag in Guantanamo, the three Brits witnessed and experienced treatment and techniques that I can only describe as torture. (Note: That is MY choice of words, not theirs. They were much kinder in their description.) Some of these practices included forced injections (they still don't know what they were injected with), hog-tying, beatings, being subjected to blaring music and strobe lights, and being forced to watch videos of prisoners who had allegedly been ordered to sodomize each other.

The men report that they had witnessed numerous attempted suicides during their incarceration at the camp. Even so, until recently, there had been no successful suicides at Guantanamo. But given the treatment, conditions, and hopeless prospects of the detainees currently at the camp, one can understand why some of the prisoners feel that suicide is their only option. And for those who do succeed in taking their lives, their blood is most certainly on the hands of our President and his administration.

Without ever being charged, the three friends were finally turned over to British authorities in March of 2004, who immediately released them. So, for Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed, and Asif Iqbal, life is great, right? Not so. All three have moved from their homes in Tipton after receiving death threats. They are constantly being detained and searched when they go through customs at British airports. In February, even two the actors who portray the men in the upcoming film, “Road to Guantanamo”, had been detained and held for questioning under British anti-terror laws. For all intents and purposes, these men’s lives have been destroyed because our government can’t seem to be able to tell the difference between real terrorists and Brits of Arab descent on vacation.

So I applaud ABC News and the Associated Press for covering the story of these young men. And I hope that this isn’t simply an administration-driven ramp-up to try to discredit them and their story. This country desperately needs more entities in the mainstream media to do some real journalism and report the dirty truth and gory details of this so-called “global war on terror”. Perhaps the media is finally waking up and discovering they have an important responsibility to fulfill. Now America, it’s time for the rest of us to do the same.

We need to put the brakes on, and we need to do it NOW.

2006-06-15T13:37:00.000-04:00

There are those on the right who accuse us liberals of having the Henny Penny “the sky is falling” attitude. They would contend that many of us on the left are alarmists, and always paint the bleakest picture. And while there have been occasions where that assessment had a certain amount of validity; this is not one of them. The picture is bleak. The glass is much less than half full. And the sky most certainly IS falling.

Yesterday, a federal judge in New York ruled that the government could detain non-citizens purely on the basis of their race, religion, or country of origin, and hold them indefinitely without explanation. Can you think of anything as patently un-American as this? You would have thought we would have learned the error of our ways after the Japanese internment camps of WWII.

We are at the top of a very slippery slope right now, and the Republicans apparently want to hit the gas, not the brakes. The Legislative and Judicial braches of the government, in apparent lockstep with the Executive, continue to whittle away at any vestiges of civil liberties and Constitutional freedoms. Merrily we go barreling down the hill, heading straight for the totalitarian state that Orwell envisioned.

Am I exaggerating? Am I being an alarmist? I don’t think so. Perhaps one could draw that conclusion if we weren’t seeing a pattern here, a progressive attack upon the freedoms we have all taken for granted for far too long. Wiretapping and data mining. Corporate complicity in turning over citizen’s private information. Abdication of oversight responsibilities by our elected representatives. Increasing levels of secrecy and deceit on the part of the administration. Profiling and targeting based on race, religion, ethnicity, and ideology rather than probable cause. Need I say more?

America, we need to put a stop to this, and we need to do it right now. We need to show up the fascists who are running the show for what they are. We need to get our friends, our neighbors, our families and our countrymen to take up the cry “No more!” And we need to join together as Americans, and take back our nation.

Ann Coulter continuing her “Hatespeak 2006” tour…

2006-06-15T12:01:00.000-04:00

Ann Coulter, the blonde conshell who has raised eyebrows, blood pressures, and bile in my throat recently with her new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism”, and her deliberately insensitive remarks regarding 9/11 widows, continued her spew circuit last night with an appearance on The Tonight Show. Now I’m not generally a Leno fan, and I’m certainly not an Ann Coulter fan, but I did watch The Tonight Show last night, mainly because I love George Carlin and K.T. Tunstall. I was also somewhat hoping that Mr. Carlin would ream Ann a new one – it couldn’t happen to a nicer bitch, and it couldn’t come from a better source. Alas, that didn’t happen. Everyone pretty much behaved themselves.

I was rather surprised by the ovation Coulter received, and I suspect that Coulter’s people “stuffed the ballot box” as far as the crowd is concerned. Hey, it works for elections, why not talk shows? I was also reminded why it is that I’m not so fond of Jay Leno… The man can’t do an interview to save his life, and he actually called Coulter a “great writer” – no accounting for taste (perhaps Jay considers “great writing” to be the ability to form complete sentences). And while he paid lip service to the idea that Ann may have offended some people, he certainly didn’t take her to task for her rampant hate speech. If Tony Snow decides to leave the post as White House Press Secretary, they can always offer it to Leno – he can toss bad one-liners in with the misinformation.

All-in-all, it was a pretty tame show, with Coulter coming across as her usual sickeningly smug, superior-than-thou self, Leno coming across as the dolt he normally is, Carlin incredibly funny and irreverent, as always, and Tunstall sounding great as ever.

Now I thought that while I was on the subject of Ms. Coulter, I’d offer her some ideas for her next book:

Soulless: The Conservative Church of Greed and Corruption.

Shameless: How I made a fortune from the 9/11 tragedy by accusing real victims of doing the same thing.

Brainless: Intelligence is WAY overrated.

Spineless: The art of calling others cowards while hiding from reality.

Shemale: My secret life as a Nazi man in a neocon woman’s body.

And finally, in deference to Dale Carnegie…

How to make money and influence policy: Friends and people are WAY overrated.

Whadya think Ann? Have I pegged your ideological bent pretty accurately?

How does one deal with a stubborn, spoiled brat?

2006-06-14T12:20:00.000-04:00

You know the type of kid I’m talking about. Ornery, defiant, unwilling to listen to those who are older and wiser. Many times, such a child’s stubborn streak prevents him from seeing the “big picture”, and often puts himself and those around him in difficult, if not dangerous situations. So what is one to do? How do you take the “brat” out of the child?

Apparently, that is the question much of the rest of the world is asking in regards to the immature, defiant country known as the United States. In a recent Pew Research Group poll, 17,000 people in 15 countries were asked about the “war on terror”, the threat posed by a nuclear Iran, and the threat posed by the U.S. being in Iraq, among other things. For the United States, the numbers are not good.

A few key items identified in the poll:

10 of the 15 countries surveyed had an “unfavorable” opinion of the U.S. Only 3 of those countries had an unfavorable opinion of the U.S. in 2002.

12 of the 15 countries considered the U.S. presence in Iraq to be a greater threat to world peace than a nuclear Iran.

China is looked upon more favorably than the U.S. in the majority of the countries surveyed.

In none of the countries surveyed (including the U.S.) do the majority of the people believe that the war leading to Saddam Hussein's removal made the world safer.

The good news? In most countries surveyed, Americans are seen as "inventive" and "hardworking". Unfortunately, they are also seen by many as "violent" and "greedy" - a judgment with which many Americans agree.

It's too bad that this administration has pissed away the goodwill of the rest of the world towards America. Especially since we had such an outpouring of support after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

As it is now, it won't be long before the majority of the "free" world starts to look at the U.S. with the same level of contempt that was previously reserved for the former Soviet Union.

But hey, let's "stay the course". Cause the good old U.S. of A.; nothing more than a child in terms of maturity as a country, knows what's best for the rest of the world. And if the rest of the world doesn't agree, we'll just throw a temper tantrum! After all, we’ve already got the spoiled brat to do it. None other than the U.S. “Ambassador” to the U.N., John Bolton.

It’s too bad the adult, rational portion of the world can't give the U.S. a "time out". We desperately need one.

I just had to share this with everyone...

2006-06-13T16:59:00.000-04:00

Take a look:

Asshole Video

Enjoy

I sure have become popular with the right-wing crowd.

2006-06-13T00:37:00.000-04:00

Seems I have another fan from the right side of the political spectrum. A gentleman by the name of Jim (to respect his privacy, I'll not list the last name), decided to drop me a line to tell me what a bang-up job I, and my fellow left-wing bloggers were doing:

" You are all Idiots!!!!!!!!!!

As a Marine that has served my nation in combat you cowardly left tree-huggers kill me. You have no clue what is going on in the world and only make up shit(your agenda) as you go.

You people are the cowards that say you have "freedom of speech" but have never contributed in any way by defending your nation. Oh, there are a few veterans that are left wingers but most of them where shit birds anyway.

These "blogs" are just a bunch of little spineless butt-nuggets that have to hide behind a PC monitor because they don't have a set of balls to face the TRUE AMERICANS. THE VETERANS!!!!!

From a veteran that bled. Semper Fi

Jim ******

(253)###-####

Call and we can meet anytome , any place."

Well Jim, I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps someday you'll see beyond the "wave the flag" partisan bullshit that has been spewed your way and realize that "tree-huggers" like me love our country just as much as you do.

Whatever you think of me, thank you for your service to our country. Whatever our differences in ideology, I strongly feel that serving your nation in the armed forces is a most noble thing to do, and I have never taken for granted the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform make for our country, and I am very grateful.

Believe it or not, one can support the troops and NOT support an ill-advised, unjust, and illegal war. Because in the end, this misadventure in Iraq is exactly that. And history my friend, will prove us bleeding-heart-tree-huggers right on that count.

And incidently, I, like so many among the "loyal opposition" are "True Americans", no matter what you have to say about it. We love our country enough to want to defend the very foundations upon which our great nation was formed. The Constitution, and the principles it embodies are far more important than cheap oil or corporate greed. And they are certainly more important than partisan political posturing on BOTH sides of the aisle. And in the end, they are more important than either one of us. That is what I would take a bullet for. That is what I would fight and die to defend. I would hope you would do the same.

And I defend my nation every day. This is how I do it. I'm willing to speak truth to people who sometimes seem to have more testosterone than brains. And I will continue to do it. So please don't waste your breath, or my time with intimidation tactics like calling me a coward or challenging me to meet you "anytome , any place". I'm secure in my beliefs, in my honor, and in my patriotism. And no schoolyard bulley antics are ever going to shake that.

Perhaps someday you'll get beyond your anger and the blinders you wear and realize that you and I are not so different. That we are both patriots. That we both love our country. We are a nation divided, and we need to heal that chasm for the good of all Americans.

I wish you well.

Is Senator Specter taking his job seriously, or is this just election year posturing?

2006-06-08T10:03:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, much to my surprise, Sen. Arlen Specter, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a rather tersely worded letter to Vice President Dick Cheney, admonishing the veep for lobbying Republican members of his committee. Apparently, Cheney had contacted other Senators on the Judiciary Committee urging them to oppose any hearings involving the question of phone companies turning over millions of customer records to the NSA. My question is, is the good Senator actually sincere in his indignation over the administration overstepping its bounds, or is this simply an election year stunt to improve the chances of Republican victories in November? For the sake of our nation, I’m hoping it’s the former, but my cynical gut tells me it is probably the latter.

In Specter’s letter, the Senator took the opportunity to criticize several of this administration’s questionable policies:

“We press this issue in the context of repeated stances by the Administration on expansion of Article II power, frequently at the expense of Congress’s Article I authority. There are the Presidential signing statements where the President seeks to cherry-pick which parts of the statute he will follow. There has been the refusal of the Department of Justice to provide the necessary clearances to permit its Office of Professional Responsibility to determine the propriety of the legal advice given by the Department of Justice on the electronic surveillance program. There is the recent Executive Branch search and seizure of Congressman Jefferson’s office. There are the recent and repeated assertions by the Department of Justice that it has the authority to criminally prosecute newspapers and reporters under highly questionable criminal statutes.”

Here’s a link to a PDF copy of the letter:

Sen. Specter's letter to V.P. Cheney
(if you can't view the file, right click on the link and choose "Save Target As")

Sure sounds like someone finally discovered they had a constitutional responsibility to provide oversight to the Executive Branch. But why is Senator Specter the lone voice of dissent on the Republican side of the aisle? Why are so many of our elected representatives unwilling or unable to put their responsibilities to their constituents, and their oath of office, before partisan loyalties? Is it force of habit? Is it apathy? Or is there more pressure being brought to bear on these legislators than the occasional phone call from Dead-eye Dick Cheney?

As we get closer to the fall elections, don’t be surprised if you see more Senators and Congressmen rediscovering their constitutional responsibilities. After all, politics in our country these days isn’t about actually doing the people’s work, it’s about getting re-elected. And what better way is there to ensure re-election than to pretend to do the people’s work?

Smoke and mirrors… again.

2006-06-05T12:19:00.000-04:00

We have some real problems facing our nation. Millions of Americans are without health care. Our education system needs a major overhaul. Energy prices are at an all-time high. Our trade deficit is skyrocketing. Our national debt is astronomical. Government spending is at the highest level ever. Inflation is on the rise. Interest rates are going up. We are in a protracted, bloody occupation in Iraq. Iran poses a serious national security threat as a potential nuclear power. North Korea poses a serious national security threat because it IS a nuclear power. Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri are still at large. Never in our nation’s history have we faced so many serious threats to our stability, our security, and our way of life.

So, of course, our illustrious President and our nation’s legislators are working hard to come up with effective solutions in our nation’s hour of need. Their latest proposal to address the country’s woes? A constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage! That’ll fix everything!

What??? Are you kidding me? This people, is nothing more than an election-year stunt to put a wedge issue front-and-center, to distract the people from focusing on our real problems, and encourage voter turnout amongst the conservative holyshit crowd. ”Oh my God! Men are marrying men! Women are marrying women! It’s unholy! It’s eeeeeevil! What is our nation coming to?” I guess the good news is that the 25% who were too stupid to realize there was something seriously wrong in our country are now up in arms. The bad news… They don’t have a clue as to what the REAL problems are.

So I have to ask the minority in this country who are still blindly supporting this President and his administration… What REAL problems has this man actually solved? What serious issues has he even addressed?? Cause unless you consider the wealthiest 1% of the population not having enough take-home pay to be a “serious” problem, this guy and his team have accomplished absolutely NOTHING since he’s taken the oath of office. This administration is about dividing, not uniting. They are about creating elaborate solutions to nonexistent problems. When in doubt, drive a wedge into the public debate, and while the rabble are distracted, we can make some more money for our corporate friends. We are being PLAYED folks. We are being played like a cheap fiddle. And sadly, a quarter of the population hasn’t seemed to figure that out yet.

There is good news. Cheap stunts and sideshow antics like this are far too little, far too late. The vast majority of the American people HAVE figured out the game that these folks are playing. And I’m betting that they are going to make evident their displeasure, loud and clear, come the November elections. America deserves better than smoke and mirrors, better than band-aid fixes to serious national problems. And come November 7th, America is going to demand better, with the greatest gift our founding fathers bequeathed to us, our vote.

And just when we thought the administration’s “big brother” mentality couldn’t get any worse…

2006-06-02T13:43:00.000-04:00

According to the L.A. Times, the Justice Department and the FBI have asked Internet providers and phone companies to keep records of users online activities for two years. Most of these companies, who usually only keep this information for a few days, are gearing up for a legal battle over the issue. According to the article, the Justice Department has made assurances that “it was not seeking to have e-mail content archived, just information about the websites people visit and those with whom they correspond.”

"This is not simply limited to kiddie porn or terrorism. It's a real break with precedent," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center. "Data retention is open-ended. The government is saying, 'Keep everything about everyone and we'll sort it out later.' " Here’s a link to the article:

Online Privacy Again at Issue

Hey Bush, Mueller & Gonzales....

"Bring it on." I WANT you to know what I've been saying. I WANT you to know what websites I've been visiting. I WANT you to know what I think of you and your ilk. And then, I WANT you to use that info. against me and a few hundred thousand of my closest friends.

Because when that finally happens, when you clowns take this charade to the next logical step, the sleeping giant known as "We The People" will finally wake up and see you for what you really are. God help you and your regime when that happens.

Some would say, "By that time, it will be too late." I say it's never too late to rid the world of fascist tyrants.

The advantage we have over the German people in the 30's? We are much more heavily armed, we are much more technologically savvy, and we have a culture and a history that does not long tolerate tyranny.

"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

Every single American, Democrat and Republican, needs to read this.

2006-06-01T16:16:00.000-04:00

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of the late Robert Kennedy, wrote an article that will appear in the next issue of Rolling Stone magazine. Mr. Kennedy has come to the same conclusion as so many other Americans - that the Presidential election in 2004 was stolen. And the prime culprit of the theft? None other than the Secretary of State of my beloved state of Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell. Here's an excerpt:

"Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)"

Here's a link to the complete article... this is a MUST READ:

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

If this is true, God help us all, and God help our country. The only consolation I can take is that I know that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Blackwell will meet their maker someday, and boy is the shit gonna hit the fan!

More cowardly attacks on President Carter

2006-06-01T10:22:00.000-04:00

Back on May 23rd, I had posted and entry regarding an effort to censure former President Jimmy Carter. I minced no words when describing the lowlifes who were behind these ridiculous antics.

Well, apparently I got the attention of one Mr. Robert Dixon, Executive Director of the right-wing propaganda machine behind this effort, MoveAmericaForward.org. Mr. Dixon was kind enough to put me on the mailing list for their slimy propaganda. Here's what I received last night in my e-mail:

Fox News Reports on Carter – Bin Ladin Ties

Today, Wednesday May 31st, Fox News Channel's "The Big Story w/ John Gibson” reported that former President Jimmy Carter's "Carter Center" in Atlanta, Georgia has received over $1,000,000 in funding from the family of Osama Bin Ladin. The information was collected by the Censure Carter Committee - a project of the pro-troop non-profit group, Move America Forward.

Watch The Fox News Segment Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYegJHEWjKU

Sign the Censure Carter Petition - HERE

FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://www.CensureCarter.com

E-Mail: info@CensureCarter.com
Phone: (916) 441-6197

Well, I couldn't let this one go by, so I emailed Mr. Dixon back:

Gee Robert, would you like me to remind you of the
close ties between the Bush family and the Bin Laden
family.

Guess you overlooked that little fact.

As usual, all you are spouting is typical, mindless,
neocon drivel. Perhaps the chronically unintelligent
on the right just eats up this crap, but you are
insulting the intelligence of the majority of
Americans.

Good luck with your slime campaign.

Dixon was gracious enough to send me a reply:

If you watched the link included in the e-mail you would see we are
very aware of that connection. Thanks for seeing the exact point we are trying to make.

Finally, here is my reply to Mr. Dixon's latest email:

So I guess your point is that it's OK for the Bush
family to be in bed with the Bin Ladens, but not
kosher for the Carter Center to (allegedly) receive
money from the Bin Laden family?

I did watch the video. It's funny how Melanie says "I
have the papers right here", suggesting she has dug up
some legitimate information on the Bin Laden
contributions. Quite frankly, anybody can ruffle some
papers and say "I have the proof right here", without
submitting the supposed "evidence" for scrutiny. I
certainly wouldn't put an underhanded tactic like that
above a political hack like Melanie Morgan.

So I would challenge you to prove your case by making
those alleged documents public, and let the American
people be the judge. I think you underestimate the
intelligence of the American people if you think
they'll swallow your propaganda hook, line and sinker
without proof of the validity of your claims. We've
been burned entirely too much by neocon lies, we're
not as trusting as we used to be.

I also find it hilarious that you are still so pissed
at Michael Moore and his movie, and Russ Feingold and
his censure resolution, that you have to stoop to new
lows by sliming a great American like President Jimmy
Carter in a pathetic attempt to retaliate against
Michael Moore and Russ Feingold.

Once upon a time in this country, an honorable man
would have the courage and the morality to take issue
directly with someone he had a disagreement with, he
wouldn't attack an innocent third party in an attempt
to "get at" his opponent.

I see no difference between your cowardly slime
campaign against President Jimmy Carter and President
Bush's cowardly act of "outing" Valerie Plame to get
back at Ambassador Joe Wilson. It just demonstrates
that both the current occupant of the White House, and
the political hacks who support him have no honor.

I was hoping that at some time, the Republican party
would develop some moral fortitude, if for no other
reason than for political survival. I guess I was
asking too much.

In the end, antics like those of your organization
will backfire. The American people are smart enough to
see these acts for what they are. And as a result,
your party will lose credibility, loyalty, and
ultimately, lose any semblance of power in American
politics.

When that happens, give yourself and Melanie a pat on
the back for a job well done.

I just thought I'd share this with everyone, to show the kind of irresponsible propaganda MoveForwardAmerica.org is spewing.

Let's keep these clowns on their toes & show them for what they are, every chance we get.

Where do we go from here? (Part I)

2006-05-26T13:14:00.000-04:00

Today’s post is a bit of a divergence from my usual format. Rather than rant about current events or point out the failings of the current administration and congress from my admittedly serious left bent, I want to toss around some ideas. I’d like to focus on what we could, what we should be doing in this great nation of ours. The first subject I want to tackle is the U.S. educational system.

There is perhaps no other single issue that will more clearly define the future of our country than the quality of our educational system. And the sad truth is the current condition of our nation’s education system is abysmal. Despite the Republican’s silver bullet of “No Child Left Behind”, our schools are continuing to fail, and we remain far behind the rest of the industrialized world in the areas of math and science – perhaps the most important educational disciplines in today’s, and more importantly, tomorrow’s world.

I believe the U.S. educational system needs a complete overhaul, from the ground up. It’s more than just setting standards and trying to boost test scores. It should also be about engaging students in the educational process. Too many children in our schools remain unengaged, unenthusiastic, uninvolved. School has become a chore to our students, or even worse, just a place to pass the time. We need to make the educational process something more than just glorified childcare.

Teaching methods need to be revisited. And our nation’s educational facilities need to be modernized, or even completely rebuilt. The focus must be on interactive education, getting students active and involved in the learning process. We humans are born students of the world around us, and we are naturally inquisitive beings. Educators should take advantage of this from an early age, and seek to instill a lifetime love of learning and discovery. This should be reflected in teaching methods, materials, and facilities. Making education fun is not a new concept. It is simply a severely underused one. School should be an ongoing voyage of discovery, with students able to build on their strengths and learn to overcome their weaknesses. You want a kid to learn something? Don’t just give him the answer; teach him how to discover it for himself.

One area that seems to be “off the radar” in America’s educational system is the subject of parental involvement. Encouraging parents to take an active role in their children’s educational process is something that all educators should do. Sadly, and I speak from personal experience here, many teachers and administrators only pay lip service to the idea of involved parents. Publicly, they “encourage” parental involvement, put in reality; they just want parents to “stay out of the way”. I suppose some of this attitude comes from being defensive about having people tell them how to do their job. But I think if they gave the concept a chance, educators in this country would discover they have a valuable ally in the parents of their students. I’m sure that there are teachers and administrators out there who have figured this out, but this needs to become the rule, not the exception in our country’s educational system.

Access to higher education is still too exclusive in our country. For many students and their families, the only option available for a decent college education is going into massive debt, with the possibility of later defaulting on that debt, which benefits no one. Let’s face it; with college tuition at an all-time high, the average American family can’t easily afford to send even one child to a four-year school. It can be argued that the purpose of elementary and secondary education is to prepare a young person for life in the “real world”. I would argue that the purpose of higher education is to prepare a young person for success, and sow the seeds of the nation’s future. Why then, would this country offer anything less than a higher education to every student who desires it? Without the threat of long-term financial hardship. Without the requirement of military service. Without the need to be a star athlete. The only requirement should be a desire to learn, and evidence of academic accomplishment. This is after all, the future of our country we are talking about. Shouldn’t we, as a nation, be willing to do everything we can to make that future bright?

Critics of overhauling the education system in our country might argue that the system is fine, now that “No Child” is on the books. Let’s stay the course. Now, where have I heard that argument before? The educational system in our country is broken. It has been for a long time. Closing our collective eyes and hoping the problem will just go away will never fix things. Others might ask, “Where are we going to get the money?” My response would be, let’s get our priorities straight in this country. We waste entirely too much of the taxpayers’ money on unnecessary bureaucracies, questionable programs, and needless pet projects. You’ll never convince me that the money isn’t there, it is. It’s simply being used for the wrong things. Perhaps we waste so much money because we don’t care. More likely, it’s because we’re not as good at math as the rest of the world – and the test scores prove it.

A follow-up on my previous post...

2006-05-23T14:37:00.000-04:00

An internet angel was kind enough to forward me the following contact information for those truly behind the Carter censure effort. Thanks Sarah!

The folks behind the Censure Carter movement
(from http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000870.php )
Contact these "Domestic Enemies" and tell them what you think.

Executive Director Move America Forward Robert Dixon : robert@moveamericaforward.org

Russo Marsh + Rogers, Inc. 770 L Street, #950 Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 441-3734 Fax: (916) 441-6057

Sal Russo: srusso@rmrwest.com
Ron Rogers: rrogers@rmrwest.com
Teri Smith O'Rourke: torourke@rmrwest.com
Joe Wierzbicki: jwierzbicki@rmrwest.com
Kelley Afghari: kafghari@rmrwest.com
Douglas Lorenz: dlorenz@rmrwest.com

As I said, let's light 'em up!

OK you scumbags, now you’ve REALLY pissed me off!

2006-05-23T12:22:00.000-04:00

There is an extreme right-wing gaggle of nutjubs out there who are starting a campaign to censure former President Jimmy Carter. Why do they want to do this? Well, if you watch their TV ad, the primary reason is in retaliation for Senator Russ Feingold having the audacity to call for the censure of a true criminal, “President” George W. Bush. They also claim that because President Carter is willing to have dialogue with world leaders we disagree with, that he is deserving of censure.

This is sacrilege. This is an atrocity. This man, who has been the voice of peace and tolerance for the past 30 years, deserves better from those who would call themselves Americans. President Carter is a patriot. He is a statesman in the truest sense of the word. And "swift boat" tactics used to smear a great man like Carter are an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

These clowns who would criticize Carter for talking with contentious world leaders, when our “sitting” President (yep, that’s about all he does, sits on his ass) will not, forget their world history. Conversation is one of the reasons we are no longer in a cold war with the former Soviet Union, with the threat of nuclear war hovering over us. Conversation is why a lasting peace exists between Israel and Egypt, brokered by none other than President Jimmy Carter. And here I’ll even give Bushboy some credit… conversation is why we are no longer dealing with a potential nuclear terror threat in Libya.

I wrote a blog post about Carter back in March of this year, and while I won’t take up space by reposting it today, here’s a link, for anyone who would care to read it.

As to the thugs who would slander President Carter, here's some background info on the scumbags doing this...

Here's the main "Censure Carter" site:

http://www.censurecarter.org/

Here's the parent organization behind the whole thing:

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/

Here's background on the human excrement running the show:

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/AboutUs

Here's the e-mail address for the bottom-feeders pushing for a Carter censure:

Info@CensureCarter.Com

Let's light-em up folks, and put these poor excuses for human beings in their place!

Here's a bit more on the douchebags running this smear campaign:

According to their web site, "Move America Forward is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization committed to supporting America’s efforts to defeat terrorism and supporting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces." If they are so "non-partisan" how come the only people they have on their board are conservative hacks? I personally think that a not-for-profit who claims to be "non-partisan" should lose their not-for-profit tax status if they are proven to be a partisan organization. But, wait a minute, that makes too much sense. So, of course, it will never happen.

The founder of this organization, the (not so) Honorable Howard Kaloogian, was the guy who started the recall process for Gov. Gray Davis in California, and got Ahhnold elected. Says something about who we're dealing with here.

Seriously folks, write these assholes and tell them what you think. Let them know that they cannot so easily disgrace the name of one of our greatest citizens. Let them know that intimidation and “swift boat” tactics will not silence the justified dissent against the criminal regime currently in power in this country.

First Amendment? What First Amendment?

2006-05-22T15:35:00.000-04:00

This weekend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez fired a shot across the bow of any journalists who still haven’t been intimidated by this administration. Suggesting that the government might prosecute reporters for publishing “classified” information – you know, things like the NSA spying on law-abiding Americans – Mr. Gonzalez seemed to be dropping a major hint to outfits like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Gonzalez, appearing on ABC’s “This Week” stated, regarding prosecution of journalists, “There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility”. Well Mr. Gonzalez, I’ll see your statutes and raise you one Constitutional Amendment. I’d really love to see the federal government start prosecuting journalists for exposing illegal activity on the part of the government. No court will uphold any such prosecution, including the dubya-stacked Supreme Court.

Not to mention the media backlash that would follow any Bush admin. prosecution of journalists. Remember something Mr. Gonzalez… it’s the media that helps to frame public opinion of your administration, and not just the media that you control. It wasn’t Congress that brought down Richard Nixon. It wasn’t the American people. It wasn’t the opposition party, it wasn’t his own party. It was the media. It was honest, aggressive reporters, and they didn’t even have an axe to grind. Imagine how kind they will be to you when you start prosecuting their colleagues. The old adage applies here… “Those who forget the past…”

And let’s not forget the hypocrisy here. The double standard. If Mr. Gonzalez were to apply his logic consistently, Robert Novak would be in jail. Mr. Novak after all, who I hesitate to call a journalist, was the one who first published not only Valerie Plame’s identity, but “outed” an entire CIA brass-plate operation, Brewster-Jennings. And then there are those within the administration who have leaked info, sometimes for political gain. Do not ask for whom the bell tolls Mr. Gonzalez, it tolls for thee.

Prosecuting journalists for reporting the truth. What’s next, hauling me off to jail for publishing an opposing view on my blog? Bring it on. If that is what it takes for America to see what this administration is all about, I say, “bring it on.”

Congressman Jefferson needs to “take one for the team”.

2006-05-22T11:59:00.000-04:00

And I’m not referring to the Democratic Party. I’m talking about his constituents; I’m talking about his country. In light of the accusations against him, and the evidence made public this weekend, the Congressman should simply resign. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is not a partisan issue at all. It is a question of ethics, and holding our elected officials to a higher standard.

The FBI raided Rep. Jefferson’s offices on Saturday, after a 14-month corruption investigation. Also made public this weekend was the existence of video showing Jefferson taking a $100,000 bribe, and the FBI discovering $90,000 of that same money in a freezer in the Congressman’s home. Here’s a Washington Post article on the latest developments:

FBI Says Jefferson Was Filmed Taking Cash

Rather than wait as long as humanly possible, like Tom DeLay, Congressman Jefferson should be a man, stand up and say, "I did wrong, and now I'm going to do right by my constituents and resign from Congress". Anything less than that, and Jefferson will be no better than DeLay, or Cunningham, or Taft, or Ney, or any of the other elected officials who have blatantly violated the trust of those they swore to represent. Democrat or Republican, such betrayal cannot and should not be tolerated by the American people.

We are deeply divided in this country. Those on the left, and those on the right can’t seem to see eye-to-eye on almost everything under the sun. But in this, we should be able to put aside our differences. In this, we should ALL agree. There is simply no room for, and we should have no tolerance for, the unabashed greed and corruption that we are seeing in public officials in our country.

We should expect better than this. The American people DESERVE better than this. And come November, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we should all demand better than this. If we do, we will all be the better for it.

So many right-wing racists, so little time.

2006-05-19T17:01:00.000-04:00

I thought perhaps that one blatant racist remark per week would be good enough for the racist-right. Guess I was wrong. Shortly after the new White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, made his thinly veiled “tar baby” racist remark (twice), the king of intolerance himself, Bill O’Reilly, decided to jump on the bandwagon. On his Faux News show, “The O’Reilly Factor”, Bill chose to defend the “white power structure” in this country (his words, not mine). Mr. “O Really?” even suggested that, “according to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will.” Yes Bill, I'm afraid you’re right. In the words of the immortal Dr. Martin Luther King, “I have a dream”. Difference is, I hold my view because I believe in justice for ALL. You hold yours because you believe in power for the few.

What, may I ask is wrong with the concept of a “multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition” in this country? It certainly speaks to the spirit of the words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. Problem is, that concept is a threat to the institutionalized racism that still exists in our country. It is a threat to the predominantly white power brokers, who roam the halls of power with impunity in this country, and hold all those who are “different” (different race, different faith, different ideology) with disdain and contempt. And it is a threat to the “good ol’ (white) boys” network of corrupt politicians, lobbyists, contractors, and clergy.

But in this, I think the racist-right has underestimated the strength and determination of the average Americans, who are sick and tired of “business as usual” in this country. And the first clue that the righties are going to get as to how badly they misjudged the American people is going to come in the elections this coming November. And the losses that they will suffer in the House and the Senate will be but the first volley in the battle for the very soul of our country.

Not so long ago, I was very discouraged about the prospects of the American people taking back their country. I had lost most of my hope that in the end; the “good guys” would win. It seemed that through their divisive and deceitful tactics, through their fear mongering and manipulation, the scum who had usurped the power of the people in our country would continue to hold the reins of power. But from what I’ve seen happening recently, from the daily public missteps of this criminal regime, from the signs of an awakening of the general populace, my hope has been restored. We WILL take our country back, and we will do it very soon.

My message to the conservatives, to the religious right, to the neo-con fascists, to the “white power structure” in this country… I’ll use a sentiment that you have been so happy to employ in the past: Be afraid. Be very afraid. The people are coming.

The party of Lincoln? “Honest Abe” would NOT be proud.

2006-05-17T13:44:00.000-04:00

In the latest example of why most rational people consider the Republicans the party of cheaters, liars, and thugs, a former RNC official is about to be sentenced on telephone harassment charges related to a 2002 election scheme. The scheme involved hiring a telemarketing firm to place hang-up calls to “jam” the phone lines of a Democrat “get out the vote” program in New Hampshire. Here’s a Boston Herald article on the case…

http://news.bostonherald.com/election2004/view.bg?articleid=139653

I hope this is the first of many convictions on Republican election fraud. Because that is what it really is. The Republican party, in typical Rovian style, feels that the best way to win an election is to cheat.

What happened to the old-fashioned concept of offering up the best candidate? Or offering up the best ideas? Has that gone out of style?

Don't the Repubs. realize that when this sort of thing comes to light, it will produce a backlash against their party and their candidates? That voters who were "on the fence" will likely lean Democrat because they don't want a bunch of crooks, tricksters and cheaters in office. Whether that impression is accurate or not, that is the impression that people will have when they see things like this.

This case is one that HAS come to light. What other stunts like this (or worse) have yet to be revealed from previous elections? This type of activity is an affront to everything that our great country was founded upon. Our electoral system MUST be above partisan trickery and manipulation.

The American people will never forgive those who would dare to take away our most basic right, the right to vote for our representatives, through dirty tricks and outright cheating. If the Republicans think otherwise, they’re in for a rude awakening come this November.

This post sums up the frustration that a lot of us feel.

2006-05-17T12:36:00.000-04:00

But I warn you, there are some graphic images in this post. Perhaps these will serve to "scare the stupid" out of those who still blindly support this President and his criminal regime.

Here's the link...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/11/22508/2415

“Hug the tar baby” Tony? I mean, seriously, “hug the tar baby”????

2006-05-17T11:06:00.000-04:00

Well, our new White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow made his podium debut yesterday… and fell flat on his face. Oh well, after all, it’s his first day at the podium, so we should take it easy on him. I just have one question for you Tony… WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU???

Here’s the context of the “tar baby” remark…

SNOW: If you go back and look through what he said, there was a reference of foreign to domestic calls. I am not going to stand up here and presume to declassify any kind of program. That is a decision the President has to make. I can't confirm or deny it. The President was not confirming or denying. Again, I would take you back to the USA Today story to give you a little context. Look at the poll that appeared the following day [...] something like 65% of the public was not troubled by it. Having said that, I don't want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program... the alleged program, the existence of which I can neither confirm or deny.

Later on, Snow tried to justify his use of the phrase…

QUESTION: What are your personal goals? What do you hope to achieve here? Will you continue to televise these briefings? And would you put into English the phrase (OFF-MIKE) 'the tar baby'?

SNOW: Well, I believe 'hug the tar baby', we could trace that back to American lore.

American lore?? What, the “lore” of the KKK? Do you have any idea whatsoever Mr. Snow, how offensive that term is to most people? Or at least most reasonable people. You would think that you, as the public face of this administration, would choose your words more carefully. I mean really, didn’t they teach you ANYTHING at Fake Journalism School?

Here’s a bit of advice Tony… Go back to Faux News, where you’ll be free to fire off biased and racist propaganda without the cumbersome restrictions of journalistic integrity. This administration can drop the ball quite easily on it’s own, it doesn’t need your assistance. Trust me Tony, you’re not doing Uncle Dubya any favors by being behind the podium.

Our illustrious President neglected to mention…

2006-05-16T13:14:00.000-04:00

That his 2006 budget, released Feb. 7th, 2005, funded only 210 border patrol agents, out of the 10,000 originally agreed to in the “National Intelligence Reform Act”. So now, since we don’t have the border patrol agents we need, it’s time to call out the National Guard?? This is just another example of the shortsightedness and total ineptitude of this administration. First they say they need to add 10,000 border patrol officers. Then they choose not to fund the increase. Now they decide to deploy the National Guard because we don’t have enough border patrol officers.

Or perhaps this was the plan all along? After all, this is the hot button issue that the Republicans CHOSE to use for the mid-term elections. Nothing like getting broad public support ahead of militarizing the border. So the question becomes, what is the long-term goal here? I mean, we are talking about the administration that has turned the concept of a hidden agenda into an art form. So what’s the Rovian scheme?

Perhaps I’m too much of a cynic. Perhaps I give this admin. too much credit. Given their history so far… I think not.

Posse Comitatus

2006-05-15T13:01:00.000-04:00

In his latest attempt to divert attention from the catastrophe that is Iraq, the pending indictment of his brain (Karl Rove), his anemic poll numbers, and the most recent revelations regarding his domestic spying scheme, President Bush has tossed out the idea that we should send the National Guard to patrol the southern U.S. border. Never mind the fact that any domestic law enforcement activities taken on by the U.S. military would be a violation of the “Posse Comitatus” act of 1878. After all, Bush hasn’t met a U.S. law he wasn’t willing to violate. Perhaps he can consult with Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and get one of his “signing statements” amended to the law.

This idea, like the idea of invading Iraq, is a disaster waiting to happen. The National Guard is neither trained, nor qualified to be border patrol agents. The role of the Guard has traditionally been one of responding to domestic crises, oftentimes to natural disasters. And yet nine months after the devastation of hurricane Katrina along the Gulf coast, rather than deploying our National Guard forces to help rebuild New Orleans, Gulf Port, and other areas, we’re going to deploy them to guard the border? Where the HELL are our leader’s priorities?

Many of the guardsmen who would be called up for this deployment have already had combat tours in Iraq, and have already spent enough time away from their families. Now, after being involved in a major military conflict, where “shoot to kill” was often a required mandate for survival, we’re going to send these soldiers down to our southern border, armed no doubt, and tell them to “secure the border.” How long will it be before the first potential illegal immigrants are returned to Mexico in body bags? How long until guardsmen on the border come home the same way? And what, may I ask, will that have accomplished?

Our illustrious President is going to go on national TV tonight to sell this proposition to the American people. The question is, will we be as gullible as we have been in the past regarding this administration’s cavalier attitude towards the lives of our men and women in uniform? Will we allow the further erosion of any semblance of accountability by this administration? And will we allow this President to ignore the Posse Comitatus act, as he has ignored so many other of our nation’s laws since he took the oath of office?

Required reading: PNAC Primer

2006-05-11T15:18:00.000-04:00

Many on the left are already aware of the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) and its extremist right-wing ideology. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this organization, it is a right-wing think tank, created in 1997 with the intent of advocating and lobbying for an imperialist bent on U.S. foreign policy. The scary part of this whole thing is that many of the founding members of this organization are now high-ranking members of the Bush administration. We’re talking the likes of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, James Bolton, William Bennett, and Jeb Bush.

Let me correct that last part. For all intents and purposes, they ARE the Bush administration. Dumbya is really just along for the ride.

Anyway, back in 2003, in advance of the ’04 elections, Bernard Weiner wrote a “primer” on the PNAC. His purpose was to educate the American people on the real agenda of the Bush administration, in the light of the PNAC’s own paper trail. I’ve added the link below, because even today, it’s relevant to what we all see going on in our country. A quick word or warning though, this may make your skin crawl.

PNAC Primer

And to those who are well aware of the PNAC and say, “this is old news”… You’re right, it is old news. But in light of recent events, I think that the sleeping giant known as “We the People” is starting to wake up. I’m simply providing this as a public service to those among us who HAVE been asleep. Consider this your morning paper. Can I offer you some coffee?

Are you scared yet? You should be.

2006-05-11T13:27:00.000-04:00

Because now we’re starting to scratch the surface of the scope of this administration’s assault upon our civil rights. As you may already know, it has now been revealed that the NSA has been compiling a database of all of the phone calls made in this country since shortly after 9/11. Not just international calls. Not just calls made by suspected terrorists. ALL PHONE CALLS. Billions of them.

All that is, except customers of Qwest Communications. The three major phone companies, AT&T, Verizon, and Bell South have happily handed over the information requested by the NSA. Qwest, on the other hand, said, “let’s see your court order.” Bravo for Qwest. It’s nice to see that some members of the corporate community have some scruples, or at least can’t be intimidated.

Defenders of this recently revealed program (yes, believe it or not, there are those defending it) have said that it does not violate the law, and that the contents of the phone calls and identities of the callers are not being collected, just the “external data” (phone numbers to and from, time, date). But quite frankly, that’s not the f*cking point!! It’s like saying, “We followed you everywhere you went, but we didn’t see what you were doing while you were there, or who you were with.” In other words, our government is stalking us. As for the argument that only “external data” is being compiled, and therefore not identifying the callers, GIVE ME A BREAK! Anybody who has used a “reverse lookup” on the web knows you can usually identify a person by name and address if you have his or her phone number.

Meanwhile, a Justice Dept. inquiry into the ethics of Justice lawyers involved in the original NSA wiretapping program, was abruptly closed. The inquiry, conducted by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (professional & responsibility – two words that are never seen in the company of “George W. Bush”), was stopped because they could not get the security clearance necessary to determine what role Justice Dept. lawyers played in the controversial (and illegal) program.

I have one question: If the Justice department is unable to investigate this program, and the Congress (thanks to goose-stepping, kool-aid drinking Republicans) is unwilling to investigate this program, WHERE IS THE OVERSIGHT of the NSA? Can this agency simply do what it pleases; let the laws and the Constitution be damned? ‘Cause it sure appears that’s what they think.

War on false pretenses. “Faith-based” government. Corporate rights trumping citizen’s rights. Cronyism running rampant. Questionable elections. “Signing statements” to usurp the power of Congress. Government-run gulags. Sanctioned torture. Massive spying on the public. And the hits just keep coming.

The big goose egg that Bush laid with “No child left behind” is coming home to roost.

2006-05-10T14:04:00.000-04:00

In a CNN (AP) article posted today, many schools are facing complete restructuring and other drastic measures as a result of the “No child left behind” unfunded mandate. According to the article…

“Falling short of requirements under President Bush's education law, about 1,750 U.S. schools have been ordered into radical restructuring, subject to mass firings, closure, state takeover or other moves aimed at wiping their slates clean.”

Now some would argue that “wiping the slate clean” would be a good thing for many schools and school districts in this country. And as for myself, being a Clevelander, I certainly don’t have much praise for my local school district. But is the “nuclear” approach really the right approach to our failing schools? As it is being applied under the auspices of “No child left behind”, I think not.

The President’s law takes an “all or nothing” approach to determine if a school is meeting the “No child” arbitrary requirements. Basically, if a school fails to meet a single requirement, it is labeled as “failing” across the board. This approach has the potential to take an otherwise successful school, with a weakness in one area, and force it to “reinvent the wheel” as far as management, staff, facilities, and curriculum are concerned.

The “No child” mandate is also encouraging many schools, and school systems to “cook the books” as far as test scores and other indicators are concerned. Thanks to the specific wording of the “No child” law, some schools are able to conveniently not report test scores of some minority students, which allows them to look better in the overall picture. This, of course, is in direct contrast to the supposed purpose of the “No child” law, which was touted as a method to provide a “level playing field” for poor and minority students.

The law also has some very interesting options for schools that fail to make progress for five straight years, and are forced to make a “drastic change”. In such a case, the school has the following options:

1. Hire an outside organization to run the school.

2. Reopen the school as a charter school, with new leadership and less regulation.

3. Replace most or all of the school staff with any ties to the school's failure.

4. Turn operation of the school over to the state, if the state agrees.

5. Choose any other major restructuring that will fundamentally reform the school.

I find it rather interesting (given the obvious corporatist agenda of this administration), that the first two options lean towards privatization of the education system. And again, this flies in the face of the original “intent” on the “No child” law, which was to address problems with education in this country. Sadly (I know from personal experience), and with few exceptions, charter schools and the privatization of public schools is all about the bottom line, NOT about educating children.

But this shouldn’t surprise anyone. Our country is being run by a regime that will sell our nation’s security to the highest bidder, our health care system to the highest bidder, our nation’s very future to the highest bidder. Why should education be any different?

If we keep talking, we CAN make things better...

2006-05-09T12:13:00.000-04:00

I had a very nice e-mail from a reader of yesterday’s post regarding Gen. Michael Hayden as the nominee to replace Porter Goss as the CIA director. Below is his e-mail to me, as well as my response. I post it here because this is what I started my blog about in the first place, an honest debate about the issues confronting all Americans. Our nation continues to face serious challenges that will affect our very way of life, and the legacy that we pass on to future generations. I believe that we can, if we continue to seriously discuss these issues, come up with innovative solutions to our problems, and leave to our children a stronger, healthier nation to pass on to their children.

“Hi Marlipern,

I enjoyed reading your blog.
http://truth-for-a-change.blogspot.com/

Your quote....."During his tenure at the NSA, Gen. Hayden oversaw Bush's controversial (and illegal) domestic surveillance program."

First... a statement....I think it is misleading to call this just a "domestic surveillance program". One end of the connection is outside the US....or....one end has made calls to suspected terrorists outside the US. I would define them as international calls making this an International Surveillance program. That is my opinion.

Second......Exactly what law or laws have been broken? Please be specific.

Third.....Does the president have the authority, during time of war, to monitory calls from suspected terrorists? Please be specific.

Finally....What is your biggest fear regarding this program? Why does it trouble you?

I would appreciate hearing your opinion.

Regards”

I refer to it as a "domestic surveillance program" to stress the fact that one end of the conversation IS inside the U.S., and that speaks to one of your other questions. The specific law that is being violated is the FISA law of 1978, which DOES require a court order to perform surveillance on U.S. citizens, even in the case of national security issues. The administration, or any of the intelligence agencies, have 72 hours to apply for that order AFTER the surveillance begins, so expediency is not the issue here.

More broadly, I am convinced, as are many others, that this is a breach of the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Ironically, the ONLY word in the fourth amendment that was capitalized in the original document, is "Warrant". I think the founding fathers believed in the old adage, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Does the President have the authority, during wartime, to monitor suspected terrorists? Absolutely. I would never deny the President, or any government agency involved in law enforcement, defense, or intelligence, from doing their sworn duty to "provide for the common defense". It's crucial to future of our nation. However, there is the mechanisms, within existing law to achieve this. My beef here is that the administration feels that it can operate outside the law, and that is unacceptable, AND unconstitutional.

My biggest fear regarding this program? That it sets a precedent that may encourage a further disregard for civil rights, the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances that were established by our Constitution. I would submit to you that if, as a result of the attacks on 9/11, and in response to the ongoing threat of terrorism, that we set aside the freedoms and responsibilities that were established by the founding fathers, and for which our fellow countrymen have fought and died to defend; that in the end, the terrorists HAVE won, because they have made us give up that which has made our country so great.

You really gotta love Lee Iacocca...

2006-05-09T12:06:00.000-04:00

In a previous post, I had referenced an interview with Lee Iacocca in Calabasas magazine. I had jokingly suggested that Bush name Iacocca as his new press secretary. A reader of the blog was kind enough to send me the rest of the interview, which I’ve posted below. After reading it, I say, forget press secretary. This guy should be President!

Q: How would you rate the priorities Bush and his friends have set?

Lee Iacocca: Forget the economy, global warming, our infrastructure of roads and bridges that are rotting away. And forget health care, which is a scandal, and is our Achilles heel. A civilization that doesn’t take care of its young people and their young minds through education, and that doesn’t take care of its aging parents? Do you think our priority was going to Iraq, really? They didn’t have nuclear bombs that I knew of. We’re in a war we should never have gotten into, and yet they haven’t resolved the nuclear powers like North Korea and Iran, so the priorities are wrong. Meanwhile, it’s going to be a half-trillion-dollar war in Iraq. And we brought what to them? Democracy? I think we brought them civil war. We’re after oil. Hitler bombed the hell out of Romania because he wanted the oil fields. Before Pearl Harbor, we forget how we were twisting the Japanese in the wind and shutting off their oil supply. No matter what you talk about, every real confrontation is based on fossil fuel because we’re just hooked on it. Selling nukes to India? Common sense has gone out the window. You can tap my phone without a warrant? Where is the media? I would think they’d be outraged at the way they’ve been conned. And the Democratic Party is sitting on its hands. What are they doing, worrying about running Hillary? Where is our country headed?

Q: We have plenty of opinions on that score, but we’d rather hear yours.

Lee Iacocca: When I go to Europe, they love Americans but they hate Bush and think he’s nuts. Through the debacle of Iraq, I would have first fired all his speechmakers. “Shock and awe,” “axis of evil,” “dead or alive”? That’s old Europe, not new Europe. How can you write s--- like that without insulting your friends? Those are fighting words. [Bush] had to call his nanny, Karen Hughes, back from Texas because he needed her to write speeches for Iraq and she wrote most of that s---. It’s time for the press and the loyal opposition, the Democrats, to be enraged and obnoxious. I think the press should stop all this political correctness and just tell it the way it is and not worry where the chips fall. I’m asked to speak at a lot of college commencements, and you don’t want to scare these kids, but we’re in debt for trillions and leaving them the mortgage, saying, in effect, “You pay it back.” Instead of “shock and awe,” we ought to be saying things like, “Cool the rhetoric” and asking, “Where have all the thinkers gone?”

The “decider-in-chief” may have miscalculated this one.

2006-05-08T13:17:00.000-04:00

Following the abrupt and mysterious resignation of Porter Goss as CIA director (more on that below), President Bush has nominated Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden to become the nation’s top spy. Hayden, currently John Negroponte’s top deputy as Director of National Intelligence, is a four-star Air Force general, and former director of the National Security Agency.

During his tenure at the NSA, Gen. Hayden oversaw Bush’s controversial (and illegal) domestic surveillance program. Hayden has been one of the most vocal defenders of the wiretapping program, arguing that the program is necessary to help defend the nation against terrorist threats. I would argue that the violation of the Constitution and the laws of our nation by our own government is a greater threat to our country and our way of life.

Another issue that is making Hayden a controversial pick to head the CIA is his current status as a U.S. military officer. Many are arguing that the CIA should be independent of the military, and should be headed by civilian leadership. Some defenders of Hayden have suggested that this concern could be diffused by the general resigning his commission. While on paper that may look good, the choice of Michael Hayden will still be tainted by his close ties to the military, especially the unpopular Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

And those of us on the left aren’t the only ones questioning the choice of Gen. Hayden. Several Republicans have also raised concerns over the President’s choice for CIA director. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, was quoted as saying of Hayden “I do believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place at the wrong time”. Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said that while he respected Hayden, the CIA "is a civilian agency; it operates differently." With this type of concern on the right side of the aisle, I’m betting that the President will have an uphill battle getting the general confirmed. As a matter of fact, this choice may backfire on Bush, as it will allow a critical, public debate over the details, scope, and legality of the NSA domestic wiretapping program. Bush’s brain (Karl Rove) may not have thought this one through. Of course, how can you blame Rove for being somewhat distracted, after all, he’s about an inch away from being indicted.

Of course, Hayden does have his defenders as well. A Kool-aide drinking recent convert to the dark side, Sen. John McCain, trying to downplay Hayden’s military ties, said,”Gen. Hayden is really more of an intelligence person than he is an Air Force officer... As you know, his career has been spent in that area, and his background -- of course, he comes from the [National Security Agency]”. Beside, the Senator said, “He is the President’s choice.” Oh, well that makes it all OK – If the “decider” has decided on Hayden, who are we, as mere mortals, to question it?

As for the mystery that started this whole fiasco, the abrupt resignation of Porter Goss as CIA director, there is much speculation as to the reasons. Administration leakers have suggested that there was an ongoing power struggle between Goss and DNI head John Negroponte. That may well be the case, but you do have to wonder, given the recent scandal involving Goss’s hand-picked number three at the CIA, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, whether there was much more to this than meets the eye. Don’t be surprised if sometime in the not-too-distant future, we hear about a connection between Goss and the mess that Foggo got himself into, involving bribery, shady defense contractor deals, and wild poker parties involving prostitution at the infamous Watergate complex.

This administration just keeps stepping on land mines of it’s own planting, and keeps working overtime to create diversions in the hopes that you and I won’t notice. America, don’t be fooled, and don’t ease up on the pressure. As more and more of this administration’s “base” distances themselves from the “thug-in-chief”, more of the truth will come to light. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s a freight train that is going to plow this illegitimate regime right out of office.

Are you righties sure you want to pick this fight??

2006-05-05T12:18:00.000-04:00

The mainstream media is jumping on the story of Rep. Patrick Kennedy crashing his vehicle early Thursday morning, and the suggestion that alcohol may have been involved. Some have suggested that Rep. Kennedy got preferential treatment, since no field sobriety test was administered. And the rightwing pundits will no doubt be all over this one, pointing their crooked fingers the Congressman and calling him a “boozer” or worse.

Now, I would agree, that given the circumstances of the accident, the time of night, the swerving witnessed, the reported staggering of the Congressman; that a field sobriety test should have been performed. And if any preferential treatment was given, that was just plain wrong. No elected official deserves a blanket “get out of jail free” card.

Having said that, I have to ask the conservo-republi-fasci-nutjobs whether they really want to pick this fight? Are you SURE??? Because turnabout is fair play. I would hope that I don’t need to remind you of the recent right-wing history on alcohol/drug abuse? Just in case, let me refresh your memory…

We have a former (?) cokehead and drunkard sitting in the White House these days. His DUI history is a matter of public record, and his coke use is legendary. We have a V.P. who shot a man in the face while reportedly under the influence. In this instance, the authorities were not permitted to even interview the V.P. until 14 hours after the incident, so no sobriety test was performed. We have the biggest name in conservative talk who was just at the local police station to finalize his plea deal on drug and “doctor shopping” charges.

So if those on the right want to play-up the incident with Congressman Kennedy, I say bring it on. ‘Cause those of us on the left will continue to pummel you with the baseball bat of your own hypocrisy.

It’s not just the oil companies… there’s plenty of blame to go around.

2006-05-04T15:59:00.000-04:00

Obviously, one of the hot button topics being beaten into the ground these days is the high price of gasoline. And many, if not most Americans have laid the blame squarely on the oil companies. Now, I’m no defender of big oil, far from it. But I feel that not enough attention has been paid to the other culprits in this whole oily mess

Take, for example, the automakers. The big three in the U.S. continue to offer and promote gas-guzzling SUV’s, trucks, luxury vehicles, and vans. They claim that this is what the public wants, and who are they to argue with John Q. Public. And perhaps this is what the public wants – Americans are not known these days for their practicality. However, I would submit that if offered an alternative that would save them money, many Americans would jump on the bandwagon. Also consider the fact that Detroit continues to lobby for the status quo as far as the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards are concerned, even though raising the standards would force America to be more fuel-efficient. Not to mention the fact that the big three, as well as their Japanese and German counterparts, are offering products in Europe that get 50, 60, even 70 mpg, while simultaneously having better emissions. So why, may I ask, aren’t the automakers offering the same products to American consumers?

And then there is corporate America in general. Perhaps big oil has no incentive to develop cheaper alternatives to petroleum-based fuels, but what about the rest of corporate America? Who wouldn’t want to be the innovator who came up with a gasoline replacement that was cheaper and friendlier to the environment? Don’t tell me it can’t be done. Brazil is doing to today. Perhaps we’re too lazy. Perhaps we don’t have the resources. Perhaps we need some of that good, old-fashioned Brazilian ingenuity. Nope, I think we’re just too lazy.

What about the government, whose job it is to promote the welfare of the nation, and provide for our national security? I would certainly say that this nation’s energy needs falls into the government’s realm of responsibility. So screw Detroit! Screw big oil! Increase the CAFE standards, and I mean a serious increase. Nothing sold in this country under 40mpg. You want an SUV? Fine. But it’s going to have a fuel-efficient engine under the hood. Offer generous development incentives for alternative fuels. And while you’re at it, tax the living daylights out of the oil companies. I’d even propose an additional tax on fuels produced from foreign oil. And put a cap on gasoline and diesel prices in the U.S. If we did that, how quickly do you think the oil companies would start re-thinking their approach?

And then there’s us. You and me. We as a society have been far too complacent, for far too long. This is not a new problem. It’s not like we didn’t have any warning. OPEC fired a shot across our collective bow 30 years ago!! And we’ve done nothing. We don’t hold our government accountable, we don’t hold corporate America accountable, we just grin and bear it. And until we demand action, that is what we will continue to do. Because Uncle Sam, GM, and Exxon ain’t gonna do anything that they don’t have to do. So it’s time for We The People to get off of our fat, lazy asses and make things happen. Now, where’d I put my bicycle?

Truth to power... Colbert style.

2006-05-01T15:00:00.000-04:00

This past Saturday, April 29th, was my birthday. And unbeknownst to me, Stephen Colbert was providing me with a wonderful birthday present… The lambasting of President George W. Bush in front of a live audience.

Colbert performed at the annual White House Correspondent’s Dinner, and much to the President’s chagrin, Mr. Colbert’s parody of a right-wing-media-nutjob was superb. Here’s part of the transcript of Colbert’s monologue:

“So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven’t. I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world. Now, there may be an energy crisis. This president has a very forward-thinking energy policy. Why do you think he's down on the ranch cutting that brush all the time? He's trying to create an alternative energy source. By 2008 we will have a mesquite powered car. And I just like the guy. He's a good joe. Obviously loves his wife, calls her his better half.

And polls show America agrees. She's a true lady and a wonderful woman. But I just have one beef, ma'am. I'm sorry, but this reading initiative. I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them. They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen. What's Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was built in 1914. If I want to say it was built in 1941, that's my right as an American. I'm with the president, let history decide what did or did not happen. The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs never will. And as excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News.”

A website has been set up to thank Mr. Colbert for proving he has “muchos huevos grandes” for taking on this buffoon who calls himself our President. The site also has links to video of the event. Enjoy!

http://thankyoustephencolbert.org/

The U.S. would rather keep the oil flowing than stop the bloodshed.

2006-05-01T12:22:00.000-04:00

The United States is supposedly engaged in a “global war on terror”. So naturally, we are focused on ending terrorism around the world, for the benefit of all mankind. Sounds great on paper, but why is it that the only “terrorism” that our government seems to want to take on is that which exists in oil-rich Middle Eastern countries? Where are our nation’s efforts to end the terrorism that has gone on for years in Darfur?

Unless of course our government doesn’t consider genocide to be a form of terrorism. I’d sure like to hear their explanation on that one. The fact is, Darfur doesn’t appear to be a “priority” for the U.S. government. We would rather invade a sovereign nation, under false pretenses, to depose a leader we don’t like than to prevent the needless murder and mutilation of hundred of thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent people. As a nation, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Nobody knows for sure how many have died in the ethnic strife in the Darfur region of Sudan. Low estimates are at 70,000 people; higher (and more accurate) estimates put the number at more than 400,000. My question is, how many will it take before the United States, the world’s only remaining superpower, gets involved? And I’m not talking about the lip-service type of involvement that we’ve seen so far. You know, where Condi Rice, or dubya issue a sound bite about what a human tragedy this is, without actually doing anything about it. Talk is cheap, and talk doesn’t stop death squads.

Our nation in general, and this administration specifically, will be harshly judged by history over our inaction in Darfur, and rightly so. For I would submit that we have a responsibility, if not simply as the most powerful nation in the world, but as citizens of the world, to act to end this bloodshed. I know people have argued over the years that the U.S. should not be the world’s police force. Perhaps. But how ‘bout being the world’s referee? How ‘bout being the world’s peacemaker, rather than the world’s warmongers? If you would argue that it’s not our job to end the slaughter in Darfur, then I would ask you, whose job is it? And who will guarantee that the job gets done? If we are truly the leaders of the free world, then when, exactly, are we going to start to lead??

And our government, and our nation’s people are not the only ones complicit in a criminal failure to act in this situation. A good portion of the guilt should also be placed at the feet of the mainstream media. The genocide in Darfur has gotten a passing reference in the national news, but no real in-depth coverage. But suddenly, when someone like George Clooney gets involved in drawing attention to the issue (thank you Mr. Clooney, you’re a great American), the media is all over the story. Why? Because corporate media feels that the can “sell” an “entertainment” story, but not a story about a humanitarian tragedy.

Today, tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future, countless of innocent people will die in Darfur because the U.S., and the rest of the world has failed to act. So President Bush, as the leader of the free world, I have one question for you: Why is killing insurgents in Iraq more important to you than saving the lives of innocent people in Darfur? See if you can give me an answer with a straight face.

The U.S. Senate would like to offer you a $100.00 bribe.

2006-04-27T12:09:00.000-04:00

Although lawmakers in Washington prefer to be on the receiving end of the graft game, this time, they’d like to grease the palms of the American people. And what would they like in return? They’d like us to turn a blind eye to the raping of the environment in the form of “oil exploration” in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Oh, and by the way, would you please re-elect us in November.

In an amendment to an emergency spending bill, Senate Republicans Charles Grassley of Iowa, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania are proposing a $100 “rebate” to ease our pain at the gas pump. How kind of them. Never mind that the proposal has no real substantive measures to address the profiteering on the part of the oil companies, or any long term solutions to our dependence upon foreign oil. No, this is a bribery attempt, plain and simple.

And in terms of a bribe, it’s downright insulting. The fact is that for most Americans, $100 wouldn’t even come close to compensating for the extra money we’ve had to pay over the past 5 years to give oil companies record profits. The fact is, the price of gasoline has DOUBLED since Bush took office. That’s right, when dubya was sworn in, gas was at approx. $1.50 a gallon. Now it’s around $3.00 a gallon. At the rate of inflation over the past 5 years, it should be at about $1.87 a gallon right now. Based on that, I will pay an extra $587 just THIS year to keep gas in my relatively fuel efficient Jetta. So my question to Sen. Grassley & Co… Is this just the first installment??

Meanwhile, our illustrious President has offered nothing but lip service in regard to high energy prices. His “generous” offer to halt new deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would by most accounts, do little or nothing to ease prices at the pump. And his proposed easing of environmental safeguards would be of great benefit to the oil companies, but offer no relief for Americans when filling up.

Unfortunately, we’re not hearing anything substantial from the left side of the aisle either. The Democrats, with a few exceptions, have not really offered a comprehensive solution to the nation’s energy woes. And those that have expressed anything innovative have been shoved aside by both parties, in favor of maintaining the status quo.

Perhaps the next Congress will have better luck at addressing this important national security issue. However, unless there is a MAJOR shakeup in the midterm elections for BOTH parties, I wouldn’t bet on it.

Pumping up the profits at America's expense.

2006-04-25T13:16:00.000-04:00

Gas prices at record highs. Oil company profits at record highs. Bush’s poll numbers at record lows. Is there a correlation here? You bet.

While average Americans, whose “real wages” have gone down every year since Bush took office, are spending more of their wages on the high cost of gas; oil company execs. are laughing all the way to the bank. The only real benefit to the situation? Bush appears to be taking a pummeling as a result. Small comfort to those of us who are paying twice as much for gas today as we were when Bush took office.

Apparently, it takes a communist foreign head of state to get Bushco to pay attention to the woes of Americans paying way too much for fuel. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced yesterday he plans to expand the year-old program of providing reduced-cost heating oil to low-income households in America’s northeast. Last year, Chavez’s program provided heating oil to 45,000 needy families in Massachusetts alone. Ironically, some Republicans have criticized Chavez for doing this just to “embarrass” President Bush.

I got news for you neanderthals on the right… Bush embarrasses himself through his total lack of concern for the American people, and his total lack of action during his presidency regarding U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Bush's energy policy (if you can call it that) has been a total failure. And while Mr. Bush may feel "embarrassed" by a foreign head of state helping Americans, he obviously feels no shame for his total lack of leadership.

America can only hope that good old-fashioned American ingenuity will come to the rescue where our government has not. And we’re getting there, but we’ve got a long way to go. We need another technological "quantum leap" to really reap the benefits of hybrid, fuel cell, and other next generation energy technologies.

What we really need to address the energy concerns of this and future generations is what I believe is the logical next step in the evolution of mankind's technology. Mark my words... the next technology that will truly "change the world" (I'm talking the likes of the wheel, the plow, the incandescent bulb, splitting the atom, etc.) will be a discovery in the area of energy storage and transmission.

Current battery technology is inefficient, cumbersome, environmentally unfriendly, and unnecessarily expensive. The guy who comes up with the quantum leap in "battery" technology will be the new Edison, the next generation's Einstein. And he or she will truly change the world.

And while the former execs. of the fossil fuel industries are wallowing in their newfound lack of power and recently discovered lack of vision, the innovator who comes up with this new technology will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Another boondoggle for corporate America...

2006-04-21T13:00:00.000-04:00

At the expense of the average American. It’s called an HSA health insurance plan. I have a real soft spot in my heart for these plans, seeing that I and my family are victims – I mean participants – of such a plan.

These HSA (health savings account) plans are touted as a method to give Americans greater flexibility on their healthcare spending, and allows participants to "save" money in a bank account, which can then be used to pay for health care not covered by the insurance portion of the plan.

What Bush & Co. (who have been the champions of this approach) don't tell you is that the main beneficiaries of this type of plan are the financial institutions that "manage" the HSA accounts (translates to: "make lots of profits off of other people's money"), and the employers who offer these plans to their employees.

Why is it advantageous to the employers? Because they get to write off their employee's contributions to the HSA accounts on their taxes. That's right, they get to take credit for the employee contributions as EMPLOYER contributions. In the case of my company, they have 4000 employees corporate-wide. At an average of about $2000 annually set aside by employees for their HSA accounts, that's an $8,000,000.00 tax write-off for the company.

Nice perk eh? And of course my company, like all the other companies who will jump on this corporate welfare bandwagon, pretty much shoved the plan down the employee’s throat. In the name of “maintaining consistency” across the corporation, they eliminated all other plans that were available to employees. After all, the more employees in this plan, the bigger their tax break. Makes sense.

The other corporate advantage to an HSA plan: You have to meet your entire deductible (excluding “qualifying” preventative care) before the insurance company has to pay a dime of benefits. They are often referred to as HDHP HSA Plans. The HDHP? It stands for “High Deductible Health Plan”. As a matter of fact, to qualify as an HSA plan, there is a MINIMUM deductible for both individual and family. Here’s the requirement:

“A qualified HSA plan has a single deductible that applies to all medical expenses covered by the insurance policy whether you are insuring yourself or an entire family. This deductible must be satisfied each year before the insurance company pays on any medical claims. The single deductible for an individual must be a minimum of $1,050 and can be any deductible up to the maximum out-of-pocket limit of $5,250 and the single deductible for a family must be at least $2,100 up to the maximum out-of-pocket limit of $10,500 for the year 2006.”

I’m so glad Bush & Co. are making sure to cover the insurance companies. Too bad they’re not as interested in making sure that actual health care gets covered. Gosh, combined with the Medicare Drug Plan windfall for pharmaceutical and insurance companies, this President is really doing great things for corporate America… As usual, at the expense of the American people.

Scotty beamed himself outta here…

2006-04-19T11:00:00.000-04:00

Now if only Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co. could follow his lead. Yep, the media’s favorite administration punching bag, Press Secretary Scott McClellen has decided to call it quits. Wonder if it has anything to do with him being the only person in the room, day after day, who takes himself seriously. Face it Scotty, you had an impossible job. You had to appear in front of the cameras every day, telling nothing but lies, and try to keep a straight face. I’m sure Faux News will be more than happy to give you a job – what you did at the White House is right up their alley.

Speaking of Faux News, it looks like Tony Snow, host of Fox News radio show, creatively named the “Tony Snow Show”, is being offered the position as the new White House Press Secretary. As I stated about McClellen above, whether lying for Faux of lying for Bush, I’m sure Snow is more than qualified for the job.

Tony Snow is no stranger to the White House; he was chief speechwriter and then “deputy assistant to the president for media affairs” for G.H.W. Bush from 1991 – 1993. So Snow has good crony credentials as well. To my knowledge, Snow has not yet accepted the position. C’mon Tony, join the cabal and help serve the corporations – I mean your country.

Meanwhile, someone I have a soft spot in my heart for, Lee Iacocca, had a great quote during an interview in Calabasas magazine. I didn’t always agree with Iacocca, but I love his candor:

"I make speeches for the Washington Speakers Bureau, get $75,000 for 30 minutes, and all I ever say is, ‘Here's what management is about. Hire good people and set some basic priorities and objectives’ Well, let's see how George Bush qualifies. The people that surround him are just friends, and I think most of them just schmucks, because I know a lot of them. Who runs the country? Cheney, is getting old and sick and had this hunting accident. And "Rummy," Rumsfeld, whom I know real well -- they've been together forever, and they run the country. They had Condoleezza Rice for lunch. I don't know what she's got on Bush, but, boy, he believes in her. Other than those three, the mastermind of them all, the boy genius, is Karl Rove -- slime bucket that he is. You've got to know him to see how slimy he is.” (found on isteve.com - thanks Steve)

Senile or not, at 81, you gotta love this guy’s way of shooting from the hip. Perhaps he should be the new Bushco Press Secretary.

Have we become that which we fought so hard to defeat?

2006-04-18T13:34:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, I talked about an issue that seems to have dropped off the national “radar”, to the detriment of us all, New Orleans. Today, I’m going to discuss another such issue that has been swept under the rug by the mainstream media… the gulag at Guantanamo Bay.

Today, there are still nearly 500 prisoners at Guantanamo, being held without charges, in an administration-created legal limbo that denies them any rights under U.S. and international law. The Supreme Court ruled two years ago that detainees could use the U.S. court system to appeal their detentions. However, a combination of administration stall tactics, virtually no access to legal counsel, and the formidable bureaucracy of the U.S. justice system has made that all but impossible for most of the detainees.

The case of two such detainees, a pair of Chinese Muslims who have been held at Gitmo for 3 years, and in U.S. custody for 4 years, ran into a roadblock yesterday. The Supreme Court refused to hear a direct appeal of their detention. A federal judge has already ruled that their detention was illegal, but stated there was nothing U.S. courts could do about it. The administration claims that they are working to release the two men (and 36 other Chinese Muslims) to a third country (to be determined), because they are afraid they will be tortured or killed if they are returned to China. Members of the detainees ethnic group, the Uighurs, who are themselves refugees residing in D.C., have offered to put up these detainees, even give them jobs. For reasons beyond explanation, the administration opposes that. Bushco says of the men’s continued illegal incarceration, it’s OK, because “the men have had television, a stereo system, books and recreational opportunities including soccer, volleyball and ping pong.” Well hot damn! Why would they ever want to leave?

The fact that a gulag-like facility like the prison camp at Guantanamo even exists is an atrocity in and of itself. The fact that it exists under the auspices of the U.S. military and our federal government is a crime against the very foundations of what our nation is supposed to stand for. This is what we found so abhorrent about the former Soviet Union, and what we still take issue with the Chinese government over. That’s what always made us the “good guys” and the communists the “bad guys”. Well Mr. Bush, the world is watching. Who are the good guys now? ‘Cause it sure ain’t us.

A portrait of "The Man Who Would Be King" if anything happened to dubya...

2006-04-17T16:08:00.000-04:00

A great expose on our illustrious Vice President:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/dickcheney/index.html

Pretty scary, eh?

I love this...

2006-04-17T12:52:00.000-04:00

Turns out Bushie is suffering from a psychological condition. Perhaps he can plead insanity when he's brought to trial. Check it out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1017546,00.html

City Elections coming up in New Orleans… displaced blacks need not apply.

2006-04-17T11:00:00.000-04:00

Disenfranchisement. Institutionalized disenfranchisement. I honestly didn’t think I’d see it in my country ever again. I thought we were smarter. I thought we had learned our lesson. I thought America as a nation had evolved beyond this. I guess I was wrong.

According to an article in The Nation, the New Orleans municipal elections coming up on April 22 will have to do without an estimated 250,000 African Americans citizens (more than half of the city’s residents). Why?? Because the Bush administration is opposed to satellite voting stations that would allow New Orleans voters, scattered throughout the country in the wake of hurricane Katrina, to vote in the upcoming elections. And the Bush Justice department actually publicly lied in their ruling supporting the Louisiana State Legislature’s plan to exclude satellite voting stations outside the state. The Justice department claimed that "minority members of the Louisiana House and Senate were unanimous” in their support of the plan, a claim that is disputed by minority members of the Legislature.

And the result of this decision? The majority of New Orleans residents will have no say in who leads the reconstruction of their city. They will have no input in how their school system is redefined. They will be denied their birthright as citizens of this great nation to select their representatives, and set the course for the future of their city. In a democratic republic, is there anything more fundamental, or more important than that? To deny these citizens their Constitutional right to self-determination through their vote is tantamount to revoking their citizenship. One dedicated public servant, Rep. Barney Frank, referred to the administration’s policies in New Orleans as “ethnic cleansing by inaction.” What else can you call Bushco's response to Katrina? I think Kanye West hit the nail right on the head: “George Bush doesn't care about black people.”

This is an attack upon the very foundations of democracy in America, and it CANNOT be tolerated. Write your Congressman, write your Senator, run through the streets with your hair on fire. Don't let this issue get brushed under the rug by Bushco & the mainstream media. DO NOT allow the right to vote to be taken away. Not in New Orleans, not anywhere. This simple thing, this basic right to express one’s views, to express one’s confidence, or to express one’s displeasure with the status quo, can never be taken for granted, and MUST NEVER be surrendered for any reason. To do so would be to dishonor the memory of all those before us who have fought and died to guarantee us that right.

I’ve said it before; I’ll say it again… America, we need to take our country back. We need to take a stand, and send a message to this administration: Enough already. ENOUGH! We will tolerate the hijacking of our democracy no more. We will no longer allow you to pervert the Constitution to your own selfish ends and forward your evil, corrupt, and fascist agenda. We will no longer sit idly by while you sell our nation’s, our children’s’ future to the highest bidder. We’ve been tolerant and complacent long enough. It's time to get involved. And it’s high time that “We the People” took back the reigns of our nation.

America appears to be suffering an Alzheimer’s moment.

2006-04-13T13:27:00.000-04:00

Our collective memory in this country seems to be failing us… on multiple issues.

Remember Katrina?? Remember how thousands of people died and tens of thousands of people were displaced? Remember the federal government’s pathetic response? So, it’s 8 months later… where are we at now? Well, if today’s news is any indication, it looks like the administration is still falling on its face with regard to their response.

Yesterday, 8 months after the storm, the federal government is just releasing its guidelines on rebuilding homes destroyed by Katrina. Just the guidelines. I’d love to find out how much actual progress has been made in the rebuilding efforts. That information doesn’t seem to be reported by the mainstream media these days. It appears they have forgotten about this tragedy as well. (BTW, anyone who has first-hand info on the progress made post Katrina, please comment here, or send me an e-mail.)

Remember the run-up to the war in Iraq?? Remember the ratcheting up of the rhetoric? Remember Colin Powell’s presentation before the UN, presenting the U.S.’s “slam dunk” case that Iraq had WMDs? Remember the fear tactics that the administration used to enlist the coalition of the coerced? Well, events from recent days and weeks are looking eerily similar to the run-up to the debacle known as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

The ratcheting up of the rhetoric has started. It’s been discovered that war planning for Iran is well underway (including the option to use nuclear weapons). And yesterday, Assistant Sec. of State Stephen Rademaker, said that Iran would be 16 days away from producing a nuclear weapon if they install the 50,000 centrifuges the facility at Natanz can accommodate: "Natanz was constructed to house 50,000 centrifuges…. Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days." Mr. Rademaker obviously went to the “Be afraid, be very afraid” school of diplomacy.

Remember the questionable elections of 2000 & 2004?? Remember the questionable ethics of Katherine Harris in Florida and Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio? Remember the questionable voting machines provided by major Bush campaign contributor Walden O’Dell of Diebold? Remember the disenfranchisement of thousands of Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor?

Do you think anything has changed since then? The network that the Republicans put in place to guarantee their victory is still in place, stronger than ever. Diebold has been given the blessing by Ken Blackwell (who, incidentally is running for Governor in Ohio) to be the ONLY voting machine vendor approved for use in the state. Republican state and federal legislators, as well as representatives from Diebold and other voting machine manufacturers, are vehemently fighting efforts to mandate paper records for electronic voting. There have been recent reports about Diebold technicians making unscheduled visits to election offices to “service” voting machines. Many of these “visits” have occurred when elections supervisors are out of town. “Black Box Voting” is a great website to get more information on electronic voting issues.

We need to remember these things. We need to do everything in our power to make sure that events like these never happen again. We owe it to ourselves, to each other, and to our nation to say “never again”. After all you’ve heard the old adage, “those who forget the past…” Oh, damn, I forget how that one ends.

How many smoking guns do we need?

2006-04-12T14:01:00.000-04:00

Once again, the pathological liar who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has been caught in a lie. Remember those “biolab trailers” that the administration touted as proof positive that Iraq had a covert WMD program? Turns out an expert team, sent by the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency – a contradiction in terms), came to the conclusion that there was no way these trailers could have been used for WMDs. And Bushco knew about it in May of 2003. Here’s a Washington Post article about the report:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html

Now it seems to me, that given this new development, given the admission by the President that HE was behind the “Plamegate” leak, given the false statements in the state of the union address, given the illegal NSA spying program, given the debacle of a response to Katrina, that this President has some serious explaining to do. Leaking classified information (the NIE wasn’t declassified until 10 days after the leak), knowingly making false statements during a state of the union address, going to war on false pretenses, violating federal law by eavesdropping on Americans, total incompetence in the wake of a national tragedy. Is there any question at this point, that a case can be made for the impeachment of this President?

It’s time we as Americans took action to end the charade that is the Bush administration. Write your Congressman, write your Senator, protest in the streets. We’re finally at a point (I believe) where the issues of abuse of power, deception, incompetence, and illegal activity in this administration have reached critical mass. Even the dye-in-the-wool Bush apologists and blind supporters are starting to shy away from this President. I smell the blood in the water. It’s time to pounce.

Does the Constitution allow for a President to be removed by reason if insanity?

2006-04-10T12:58:00.000-04:00

'Cause this guy is certifiable. In a piece by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine, officials inside and outside the administration have confirmed that there have been discussions about using tactical nuclear weapons in air strikes on Iran.

I have just one question for the Bush administration: ARE YOU PEOPLE COMPLETELY INSANE??!!! Does this administration honestly believe that they can solve the problem of Iranian nuclear ambitions BY USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Do these people have any idea of what will likely happen if we use nukes in Iran?

First off, our already pathetic image in the rest of the world will hit an all-time low (sort of like the President's poll numbers). Secondly, Iran will retaliate by cutting Hezbollah loose on U.S. interests around the world, including attacks on U.S. soil. Third, Iran will no doubt seek to cause the price of oil to skyrocket to make the U.S. pay for military action against them. And finally, China, who relies on Iran for a good portion of its oil, will likely feel compelled to retaliate against the U.S. as well. If THAT happens, game over.

That's right folks, this administration is willing to risk global war because the Iranians aren't going to fall in line and do what we tell them to do. Dubya is so used to getting what he wants, he's willing to subject the whole world to his temper tantrum. Former first lady Barbara Bush should be smacked for raising such a spoiled brat.

Just say “no” to pork.

2006-04-10T10:38:00.000-04:00

And the Democrats did. Too bad the Republican Senate is willing to put special interests before the public interest.

In a testament to how broken things are in Washington, the Senate last week failed to pass the compromise legislation on immigration reform. In a “test” vote to see if the legislation would fly, the measure was defeated 60-38. In his radio address this weekend, President Bush accused Democrats of using “blocking tactics” to prevent the passage of the bill.

Oh really?? Well, lets take a look back at that vote on the bill… 38 “yea” votes, 37 DEMOCRATS, 1 Independent. 60 “nay” votes, 56 REPUBLICANS, 4 Democrats. Sure looks to me like the Republicans were the ones who defeated their own bill. So what were the “blocking tactics” that the Democrats used? They refused to allow nearly 400 amendments to be added to the bill.

Amendments are the Republican Senate’s favorite method for adding “pork” to otherwise beneficial legislation. So for example, a Senator in Kansas (with no borders with a foreign country) can tack a “pet project” onto a “border security” bill. This is how fiascos like the “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska came to be. So when the vote came on Friday to forward this bill to the Senate Judiciary committee, Senate Democrats chose to take a stand and prevent a bill, weighed down with unnecessary amendments, from continuing on as proposed. And the Republicans refused to forward the bill without the amendments attached. The result? The Dems. voted FOR an unadulterated bill, and the Repubs. voted AGAINST their own bill.

Proof positive that the old adage is right on the money: “If the opposite of pro is con, then the opposite of Progress? Congress.”

The NSA spying program… have we only heard the half of it?

2006-04-07T12:56:00.000-04:00

In testimony before the House Judiciary committee yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez suggested the possibility that the administration also considered it legal to listen in on a completely domestic call without a warrant if it felt it was related to Al Qaeda. Thus far, the administration has only admitted to warrantless wiretapping of calls where one party was outside the U.S. The Washington Post has a story on this in today’s edition:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600764.html

My money is on the likelihood that Gonzalez is just “priming the pump”, if you will. I think the administration knows this portion of the NSA program is about to become public, and they want to be “ahead of the story”. Don’t be surprised if you see this story break in the next week or so.

Meanwhile, the silence from the White House is deafening regarding yesterday’s revelation that “Scooter” Libby got authorization to leak a portion of the NIE to Judy Miller (effectively outing Valerie Plame) from President Bush himself, through V.P. Dick Cheney. I figured this would be the logical progression of this case, seeing that Libby had previously been quoted (in testimony) as saying his “superiors” (plural) had given him authorization to leak the information.

Here’s a hint to the conservatives out there… Cut your losses while you can. Get your President & V.P. to resign. If you don’t (which you won’t), and even half of what those of us on the left suspect comes to light (and it will), Republicans won’t even have control of the Capitol janitorial service for the next 50 years. And America will never trust you again.

Some would say, “well, look at Nixon – even after what he did, people still trusted the party.” Big difference here – Pres. Nixon didn’t send 2500 Americans to their death halfway around the world on false pretenses. Nixon didn’t leak classified information just to discredit someone who tried to tell the truth. And Nixon was smart enough, and not so god-damned arrogant to know when the jig was up, and he resigned for the good of his country.

“For the good of his country” is a concept that Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzalez, and Rumsfeld just don’t comprehend. And that is what will be their undoing. Because if you cannot be a patriot, then you have no business holding the highest offices in the land. You clowns may not be smart enough to figure that out, but I am quite sure that America is.

Gentlemen, start you nukes… and they’re off!

2006-04-06T12:58:00.000-04:00

Looks like dubya is bored with just terrorizing the Middle East, he wants to spread the wealth. In a move prompting the response “you want to do what??” from most rational people, our government has decided to get back into the nuclear weapons business. The United States hasn’t produced a new nuclear weapon since 1989 (ironically, under daddy Bush’s tenure), but Bushco has now announced that they want to gear up to produce 125 nukes a year by 2022. The LA times has a good article on the topic:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nuke6apr06,0,5989419.story?coll=la-home-headlines

How in the hell can we preach non-proliferation around the world and at the same time ADD TO OUR NUCLEAR ARSENAL??? It's as if Bushco hasn't met a hypocrisy it doesn't like!

Here's a clue, numbskull... if we re-start the arms race, China, Russia, N. Korea and Iran will pick up the gauntlet and join us. But that’s okay, now that we’ve inked a deal with India on nukes, maybe they’ll be on our team!

How can these terrorists who call themselves our government spew on about National Security while doing everything in their power to make us (and the world) less secure????

“It Can’t Happen Here” – Well guess what? It is.

2006-04-06T12:33:00.000-04:00

Sinclair Lewis’ famous work is as apropos today as it was in 1935. Different regimes, same theme. For those of you unfamiliar with the book, Lewis’ fictional (?) novel is about fascism taking over America. Here’s a synopsis of the book by one Amazon.com reviewer:

“Surprisingly, Sinclair Lewis' darkly humorous tale of a fascist takeover in the US, "It Can't Happen Here," is not merely out-of-print, but also quite hard to find. As dated as it is (1935), its themes will be quite familiar to Americans today. It starts with the highly contested election of an oafish yet strangely charismatic president, who talks like a "reformer" but is really in the pocket of big business, who claims to be a home-spun "humanist," while appealing to religious extremists, and who speaks of "liberating" women and minorities, as he gradually strips them of all their rights. One character, when describing him, says, "I can't tell if he's a crook or a religious fanatic." After he becomes elected, he puts the media - at that time, radio and newspapers - under the supervision of the military and slowly begins buying up or closing down media outlets. William Randolph Hearst, the Rupert Murdoch of his times, directs his newspapers to heap unqualified praise upon the president and his policies, and gradually comes to develop a special relationship with the government. The president, taking advantage of an economic crisis, strong-arms Congress into signing blank checks over to the military and passing stringent and possibly unconstitutional laws, e.g. punishing universities when they don't permit military recruiting or are not vociferous enough in their approval of his policies. Eventually, he takes advantage of the crisis to convene military tribunals for civilians, and denounce all of his detractors as unpatriotic and possibly treasonous.”

Sound familiar? It should. The current administration’s approach to the economy, national security, religion, human rights, organized labor, corporate power, etc., are all eerily similar to past fascist regimes, fictional AND real.

A political scientist by the name of Dr. Laurence W. Britt, has studied several fascist regimes from the past, including Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Franco’s Spain, among others. He identified 14 characteristics of fascism, which he published in the Spring 2003 edition of “Free Inquiry” magazine. Here are the 14 characteristics:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

The “Patriot Act”, “God Bless America” at every ball game, Flags everywhere, etc.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

Guantanimo Bay. Need I say more?

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

Terrorists, Democrats, Liberals, Intellectuals, Gays, Immigrants, take your pick.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

“Support the troops”, U.S. Military spending at an all-time high, including expenditures not approved by Congress.

5. Rampant sexism.

Abortion rights (or lack thereof), inequality in pay, “Traditional family values” Translation – Mom should be at home with the kids.

6. A controlled mass media.

Fox (faux) News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. Here’s a hint: Corporate control STILL means control. Just take a look at which party the execs. from these corporations are contributing to.

7. Obsession with national security.

“Patriot Act”, Dept. of Homeland Security, NSA spying program, etc.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

“Faith-based initiatives”, Famous Bush quote: “There’s a higher father”, Robertson, Fallwell, etc.

9. Power of corporations protected.

Enron, Halliburton, The Carlyle Group, Diebold, etc.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

Establishing the Dept. of Homeland Security eliminated the collective bargaining rights of 170,000 federal employees. Revoking the federal requirement for overtime pay for an estimated 80 million people.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

Hollywood is “out of touch” with mainstream America, reduction in funding for the arts, etc.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

Bush’s record on capital punishment in Texas. Need I say more?

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

This one speaks for itself.

14. Fraudulent elections.

Katherine Harris, Kenneth Blackwell, Diebold. Need I say more?

Americans are deluding themselves if they think that the similarities here are mere coincidence. The fact is, we ARE dealing with fascism in America. Institutionalized fascism. We can try to rationalize it all we want, we can attempt to explain it away, and we can simply ignore it. Or, we can do something about it before it’s too late.

We CAN take our country back, but we must act quickly to do it. Mark my words, the next major crisis this nation faces, whether it be another terrorist attack, a financial calamity, or a major military conflict, will be all that is necessary to impose total fascist control of our country. Bush & Co. are just itching to turn the thumbscrews that last little bit.

America must organize and mobilize to thwart the current perversion of our Democratic system. More than anything else, organized labor needs to step up to the plate. The unions in this country seem to be the only remaining organized force with enough power and clout to pose a serious threat to the entrenched fascist regime that calls itself our government. Organizations like Moveon.org need to spend more time on the “big picture”, rather than focused issues, and help to educate America as to exactly what’s going on in our country.

And average Americans need to quit being so fat, dumb, and happy. Quit the complacency. “Well, it’s not so bad”. YES IT IS. “We’re still a free country.” NO, WE’RE NOT. “It can’t happen here." YES, IT ALREADY HAS.

“ABC” should stand for “Another Bush Calamity”

2006-04-05T11:30:00.000-04:00

A recent report released by the GAO, is critical of the Bush administration’s insistence that the majority of the funds for their global AIDS program be used on “Abstinence only” and “Fidelity” programs. The GAO concluded that efforts to adhere to the program’s “ABC” strategy, “abstinence until marriage, being faithful thereafter, and using condoms in high-risk sexual encounters” was diverting money from other vital AIDS relief efforts. Of the 15 countries reviewed in the report, 9 of them reduced the amount of money for programs aimed at preventing mother to child transmission of HIV in their ‘06 budgets, so as to meet the spending target for abstinence promotion. “In perhaps the largest adjustment, one country cut from $8 million to $4 million its spending on prevention services for couples in which one person has HIV infection and the other doesn't -- an extremely high-risk group -- as well as on sexually active youths and sex workers.” – from today’s S.F. Chronicle.

Here’s a clue numbskull… You can't legislate morality, and you can't force your morality on other cultures. You can't criminalize "sin", you can only criminalize crime. And you can't deny basic human nature. Period.

"Abstinence only" programs WILL NEVER WORK. Period. They DON'T work in this country, so what makes us think we can shove them down the throat of another culture?

If Bushco doesn't care about, and doesn't want to provide funding for AIDS programs, fine. Then be honest about it and say as much. But how can these right-wing-nutjobs force people in the third world to adhere to their extremely narrow, puritanical, prudish beliefs on sex??

Next thing you know, they'll be telling the people of New Orleans "We'll provide you with hurricane relief, but first you must accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior." It may sound like an exaggeration, but morally speaking, the analogy is identical. They're immorally placing a "morality" condition on doing the right thing. Yeah, that's a real "Christian" approach.

What do I call the resignation of the former House Majority Leader?

2006-04-04T12:02:00.000-04:00

A good start. And no doubt the first in a series of dominos to fall thanks to the best friend that the American political system has had in a long time… Jack Abramoff. Yes indeed, after months of scandals and indictments, Mr. DeLay has finally read the writing on the wall and has announced he will resign from Congress. Of course, in typical Republican style, DeLay made it a point to “spin” the issues behind his decision.

"I refuse to allow liberal Democrats an opportunity to steal this seat with a negative personal campaign". Excuse me? “Steal this seat”?? Did it ever occur to you, Congressman DeLay, that your constituents might not look too favorably on money laundering, gerrymandering, and bribery? Sorry Tom, you can’t pin this one on the Dems. You did this to yourself. Deal with it.

And of course, in typical Republican style, the Bush administration decided to “spin” their reaction to Mr. DeLay’s decision. "Congressman DeLay has been a good ally whom the president has worked very closely with." Yeah, with friends like that, who needs Abu Ghraib, or Plamegate, or Katrinagate, or WMDgate, or an opposition party for that matter? Really dubya, you sure you still want to cozy up to this guy? I mean he’s so radioactive, you can see the glow a mile away. Oh well, suit yourself.

And in an unnecessary attempt to improve his chances of winning the “Bonehead of the Year” award, Rep. DeLay has actually suggested that he might want to become a lobbyist. That he might be able to accomplish more outside of Congress than within. Well Mr. DeLay, your buddy Jack Abramoff has had a great deal of experience as a lobbyist, why don’t you ask him how that’s working out for him?

This is the beginning folks. As Abramoff continues to sing, more crooks will continue to tumble. Consider it Darwin’s theory of natural selection being applied to the American political scene.

A nuclear Iran is no doubt a serious global threat…

2006-04-03T15:49:00.000-04:00

But then again, the U.S. with nukes is a serious global threat. As is Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Gr. Britain, France, Israel, N.Korea, etc...etc...etc.

I think the United States must be EXTREMELY careful in acting unilaterally against Iran. We are talking about a country with a very effective and well-established human intelligence network. Not to mention that Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are at their beck and call. I would say it is extremely likely that the U.S. would be targeted for a terrorist attack in the event of any unilateral military action against Iran on our part.

Having said that, I think the real threat of a nuclear Iran is to Israel, not the U.S. (other than the threat to our country's drug of choice - oil) It's likely that Israel also has better intelligence than we do on the extent and location of Iran's nuclear facilities.

My bet is that when Israel deems that the Iranian nuclear program has gone too far, they will act themselves to attempt to put an end to it, and won't ask us for permission. Will this start a full-scale military conflict in the region? Probably. Will it start WWIII? Possibly. But I would like to believe that cooler heads would prevail.

Whatever the outcome of the situation in Iran, I find it highly hypocritical for the U.S., or quite frankly any of the current nuclear powers, to lecture Iran or any other country on non-proliferation. How can we tell other countries not to develop nuclear weapons when we are taking absolutely no serious steps to reduce our own nuclear arsenals?

Friends don't let friends vote for Mike DeWine.

2006-04-03T12:52:00.000-04:00

There are so many reasons not to send this guy back to the U.S. Senate. A brief look at Sen. DeWine’s legislative record should be more than enough for most rational people to come to this conclusion.

Here’s a man who has proposed legislation to “suspend temporarily the duty on” 9 different chemicals that the U.S. imports. This seems to be a very common practice among Senate and House Republicans. I’ve looked at the Congressional record, and while I haven’t looked at all of the 540 pieces of legislation from the 109th Congress that involve this practice, every single one that I have looked at (about 100), was proposed by a Republican. Obviously, suspending the duty (or tariff) on an item makes it cheaper to import it into the U.S. This of course is a benefit to any company who would prefer to import cheap alternatives to U.S. products. Now, really, is there any question as to whose pockets Sen. DeWine and many other Republicans are in?

Senator DeWine, in 2003 & 2004, co-sponsored legislation to add a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw the desecration of the United States flag. Now I’m not the flag-burning type. I never have burned one, and I likely never will. But I recognize, as should all Americans, that it is a citizen’s right, to exercise their FIRST AMENDMENT rights, by burning the U.S. flag in protest. And quite frankly, if the sanctity and stability of our nation is threatened by the mere burning of a piece of cloth, then we’ve got much bigger problems than outlawing flag burning.

And let’s not forget S.2455, the “Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006”, in which Sen. DeWine is attempting to change the law to make President Bush’s breaking the law more palatable. And this is the part of this legislation I love:

“SEC. 8. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS.

(a) Establishment of Offense- Chapter 37 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 798A the following new section:

`Sec. 798B. Unauthorized disclosure of information on surveillance programs

`(a) In General- Any covered person who intentionally discloses information identifying or describing, whether in whole or in part, electronic surveillance authorized by section 2 of the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, or any other information relating to the Terrorist Surveillance Program under that Act or any program of surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) to any individual not authorized to receive such information shall be fined not more than $1,000,000, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.”

So basically, Mr. DeWine is trying to make sure that when the government undertakes a questionable surveillance program again, nobody can talk about it, especially the media. This way, that inconvenient little thing known as THE TRUTH won’t embarrass Sen. DeWine’s beloved President again. Fifteen years and $1 million fine. Pretty steep. I wonder what the penalty is for violating the FISA law in the first place?? I’m sure White House counsel knows what that is.

Congressman Steve King: Douchebag for America!

2006-03-31T14:47:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-03-31T13:10:00.000-05:00

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!

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

2006-03-30T13:04:00.000-05:00

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.

President Carter, the voice of reason once again.

2006-03-29T17:11:00.000-05:00

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…

2006-03-29T13:43:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2006-03-28T12:37:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2006-03-27T12:47:00.000-05:00

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.

The Unitary Executive

2006-03-24T12:08:00.000-05:00

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.

Decisions, decisions, decisions...

2006-03-23T13:11:00.000-05:00

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!

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

2006-03-22T21:40:00.000-05:00

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.

Tolerance for your fellow man. What a concept!

2006-03-21T10:18:00.000-05:00

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.

Happy Spring!

2006-03-20T16:29:00.000-05:00

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!

An Open Letter to our Senators

2006-03-16T09:53:00.000-05:00

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...

Grow a backbone you spineless twits!

2006-03-15T10:58:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2006-03-14T16:54:00.000-05:00

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...

2006-03-14T15:59:00.000-05:00

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.

2006-03-14T14:24:00.000-05:00

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.

2006-03-14T13:06:00.000-05:00

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.

Why did she have to retire?

2006-03-13T12:02:00.000-05:00

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

2006-03-13T11:37:00.000-05:00

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.

Looking to the Heavens

2006-03-10T13:17:00.000-05:00

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.

Jimmy Carter: A great American.

2006-03-09T15:33:00.000-05:00

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/

Codifying the rape of the Constitution

2006-03-08T12:48:00.000-05:00

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.

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

2006-03-07T10:55:00.000-05:00

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."

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

2006-03-06T15:42:00.000-05:00

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.