Wide Awake In Hoserland

Republicans, Toddlers, and Temper Tantrums

2009-11-03T14:20:00.007-05:00

There comes a point in the development of a child where they learn the seemingly magical word, "no." And anyone who is a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling or even casual observer probably knows that once that toddler is on message, getting him/her off it is damn near impossible.

It seems that the Republican Party, particularly those in Congress, and toddlers have a lot in common these days.

Don't believe me? Here are a few examples:

• January 2009 - The economy is in freefall in large part due to the ineffectiveness of the Bush Administration. Days after President Obama takes the oath of office, the House passes an $820 billion economic stimulus bill. The number of Republican votes: ZERO

• July 2009 - The debate moves to health care reform and the GOP raises the flag of fiscal conservatism. Mind you it wasn't a concern of theirs when the Bush administration rang up the then biggest deficit in history, but that was then, this is now. Perhaps their flag was at the dry cleaners.

• August 2009 - The health care battle rages on while Congress is on summer recess. GOP plants infiltrate town meetings to rile up the populace. Intellectual powerhouse and GOP darling, Sarah Palin, coins the phrase, "death panel" and scares the hell out of senior citizens. With such vociferous opposition, one might think that the Grand Old Party would be forthcoming with brilliant counter-proposals.

Hmmm . . . what's that word I'm looking for . . . oh yes, NO.

Now as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee debates a major bill to reduce the emission of green house gasses, the Republican'ts are at it again. In fact, not only are they saying no, they're boycotting the discussion in order to block the committee from having a quorum. Committee rules being such that two members of the minority party must be present to constitute a quorum. Their reason? They want an EPA analysis of the bill. This would seem reasonable and prudent if the EPA wasn't scheduled to appear before the committee next Tuesday for the express purpose of answering their questions.

It seems that no matter what the topic, the Republican Party is bound and determined to be obstructionist, while offering no alternative. In truth, it's the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.

Perhaps they should consider throwing themselves on the floor, kicking and holding their breath until they're blue in the face. Couldn't hurt.

Putting The Hurt On Health Care

2009-08-11T23:18:00.011-04:00

The health care debate is in full swing and there are a lot of loud voices in the mix, especially from the right. What fascinates me about the town meetings going on across the country, is that the folks who are losing their minds over the cost of the yet to be unveiled plan, are pretty much the same demographic who supported without question the historic deficits wracked up by the Bush Administration. These same people who are tremendously concerned that our government might take us down the road to socialism, ironically had absolutely no problem when the previous administration took us on an extended tour of fascism.

OK -- I got it. It's o.k. to emulate Nazi's, but Communists not so much.

Of equal wonder to me is the fact that many opponents of a public health care option fail to realise that there is a long history of this type of program in the United States specifically, Medicare and the Veterans Administration. Many members of the opposition participate in these programs. While the VA may not always be the model of efficiency, I've yet to meet a veteran with the benefit who wants to give it up. Interestingly enough, those in the demographic that seem to be in greatest opposition to reform are those who most benefit from the current systems we have in place.

If a public option is such a socialist idea, perhaps they'd support revoking all publicly supported health care. Ask one and see what they say.

We have Medicare and the VA because we recognize that we have a moral obligation to our citizens, particularly those who have so honourably served their country. The bottom line here is that far too many of our fellow citizens do not have health care. They need a fair and affordable option and giving them one has the long term potential to reduce both catastrophic illness and catastrophic health care costs. The ability to have a regular medical checkup means that disease can be caught early. Catching disease early leads to lower costs through less invasive and expensive treatments. So why wouldn't a good fiscal conservative want something like that?

Hmmm . . . Could it be that higher health care costs lead to higher profits?

It's just a working theory.

Radical Islam? How About Radical Christianity?

2009-06-01T21:19:00.004-04:00

Too often in this country, I hear the far right decry the threat to the United States that is "radical Islam." The murder of Dr. George Tiller proves quite concretely that the threat is not merely from radical Islam but also from radical Christianity.

It's a view that I've held for a long time.

This post isn't about the legality or morality of abortion. At the moment abortion is legal in the United States of America. The first amendment protects the right of organizations such as Operation Rescue and even the Army Of God to speak against the practise. It is legal for them to voice their opinion, lobby for the prohibition of abortion and, yes, even picket clinics that perform abortions. Under the Constitution they are afforded a great number of rights. The Constitution does not, however, afford them the right to murder those with whom they disagree.

Under any circumstances.

To be frank, I have had enough of the Christian right trying to set the social agenda of the United States of America. I am tired of their opposition to abortion while at the same time generally finding no moral objection to capital punishment. I am sick of their endless pontificating against gay rights and gay marriage. I am disgusted by their vitriolic rhetoric and their mouthpieces such as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. I am mystified by how frequently their voices of moral authority such as Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker and Ted Haggarty manage to be caught in the very behaviour that they claim to be least moral.

Mostly, I am horrified that they claim to love and follow the word of Jesus while typically basing their positions on the old Testament.

You would think that the murder of a man in a house of worship would cause the leadership of the anti-abortion movement to take a step back. You'd be wrong. Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue had this to say, "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions." And he's the moderate. Take a look at the Army of God website: http://www.armyofgod.com/deadAbortionists.html

Let me be clear. I am pro-choice, but I am not particularly a fan of abortion as birth control. I would prefer that people make good birth control choices. I am a fan of adoption. But, I draw the line at violence. It's time for those who oppose this form of radicalism to speak out, particularly those who are Christians of the non-radical variety.

Perhaps it's also time to turn the spotlight on the radicalism that is festering within the borders of the United States.

If Mr. Cheney Wants To Be In The Spotlight . . .

2009-04-24T10:44:00.004-04:00

Lately it seems that it's impossible to turn on the news without hearing former Vice President Dick Cheney lamenting the mistakes of the Obama Administration. He's accused the administration of "raising the risk of attack," called the releasing of memos related to sanctioned torture, disturbing," and even took issue with the fact that the President shook hands with Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. It seems that Mr. Cheney is not content to simply ride off into the sunset and reap the financial benefits that he undoubtedly accrued from raiding the Treasury over the past eight years.

Exactly how many government contracts did Halliburton obtain?

Yes, it seems that our cranky ex-Vice-President wants to remain on the center stage as the defender of torture, imprisonment without basic legal rights and an isolationist. And I hope he does. Because every time, Mr. Cheney opens his mouth, he reminds us of the stark differences between his approaches and those of the current administration. He underscores that his politics are those of "security at all costs and human rights be damned." He brings to the forefront debate about what the United States really stands for.

Bravo, Sir. Bravo.

It is good and necessary to have these discussions. It is important to examine our founding principles and cultural values and it is equally important to examine our mistakes. I am grateful to Mr. Cheney for helping to keep these issues in the spotlight. He has reminded us that our fundamental concern as a nation is not just the economic woes of the moment, but rather, examining whether we have lived up to what and who we say we are as a nation.

Go forth examiners!

I encourage and advocate for investigation into things such as allegations of torture, the existence of secret prisons, suppression of legal representation for prisoners, and the legality of domestic wiretapping practices. I applaud the release of memos relating to these practices over the past eight years and frankly, would equally support the release of historical practises in this area. I desire accountability for violations of the law whether it be domestic or the Geneva Conventions. And I hope for one other thing . . .

I hope that when all is said and done, Mr. Cheney considers a colonoscopy the least thorough examination he has ever had.

Right Wingers Teabag Across America

2009-04-15T22:25:00.006-04:00

It's tax day in American and in an effort to invoke images of the Boston tea party, protesters led by right wing commentators and complete with stages, sound systems and in one case, Ted Nugent, spontaneously gathered to protest "excessive taxation," bailouts and recent stimulus spending.

There are just a few small problems with the scenario.

First Problem: The protests lack authenticity.

While it is certainly valid to protest the size of the stimulus, or the fact that there have been corporate bailouts, it would ring more authentic had these same folks been protesting when President Bush did the same thing in September of 2008. Where was the outrage when former Goldman Sachs CEO and then current Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, directed billions of dollars to his former company? Where was the outrage when the cash was shelled out without oversight?

Perhaps they were teabagging in private that day.

Second Problem: The stimulus seems to be working.

Contrary to what teabaggers might have you believe, there are some positive signs in the economy. We're not completely out of the woods yet, but there are some good indicators. These include: profitable quarters at two key banks (Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo); stabilization of the dow which after dropping at the change of administrations is back around January 20th levels, in fact it's been trending back up; and the fact that several stimulus projects are not only done, but under budget and ahead of schedule.

What's a teabagger to do?

Third Problem: Most of the protesters will actually benefit from the President's tax policies.

That's right. As promised in the campaign, President Obama, has announced $120,000,000 in tax cuts, $2,500 in breaks for college and an $8,000 cut for first time home buyers. Hmmmm . . . I don't remember that last one when I bought my first house two years ago.

Sadly, some decided to augment their public teabagging activities with signs that proclaimed things such as: "Hang 'Em High," "Obama = Hitler," "We Are A Christian Nation," "Hey Big Brother Show Us Your Birth Certificate," "Stand Idly By While Some Kenyan Tries To Destroy America . . . Homey Don't Play Dat," and my personal favourite, "The American Tax Payers Are The Jews For Obama's Ovens."

It's tax day in America and, in every sense of the phrase, the right wing is revolting.

Note To George W. Bush: Game Over Dude

2009-01-29T23:23:00.004-05:00

It's just seven days into the Obama administration and apparently George W. Bush doesn't realise that he's no longer President of the United States.

You may recall that in May of 2008, former Bush adviser Karl Rove was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify on the firing of U.S. attorneys as well as, the prosecution of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman. Mr. Rove's response was to decline, asserting that he was exempt under executive privilege. On July 30, 2008, a US Congressional panel voted 20-14 to hold Rove in contempt of Congress.

Arrest, try, convict, right?

Not so fast. While Congress can hold someone in contempt, it's up to the Attorney General to go forward with the prosecution. As you might imagine, the Bush Justice Department declined. And so Rove went on to become another tool in the Fox News tool box.

Fast forward to 2009.

On January 26, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers, again issued a subpoena requiring that Mr. Rove testify before his committee. Sounds like a slam dunk, right? Well not according to Rove, who is now asserting that executive privilege applies even though Mr. Bush has left office. It's a ridiculous claim when one considers that the Supreme Court has rendered opinions on the matter before. Most notable is that of Chief Justice Burger who stated that "executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns."

So how exactly does Mr. Rove testifying on the firing of U.S. Attorneys constitute a national security concern?

Answer, it doesn't. But then the rule of law was never a strong suit of President Bush who can count among his executive privilege gems:

• preventing the disclosure of details about Vice President Dick Cheney's secret meetings with energy executives.

• stopping the release of document to Congress relating to Pat Tillman's friendly fire shooting death.

• preventing the investigation of whether the the firing of U.S. Attorneys was politically motivated.

Hmmmm . . .

Now executive privilege has a place in government. To be fair, lots of Presidents have used it before, including George Washington. A President needs to be able to receive the unfettered counsel of his or her advisers. But the Supreme Court has been clear that when claimed, its use should be narrow in scope. In other words, it should be the exception rather than the rule. And there's one other thing . . . No President has ever tried to use it after they were out of office. Perhaps no one told W. that his game is over.

Repeat after me. Arrest, try, convict, repeat. Arrest, try, convict, repeat.

Our Long National Nightmare Is Over, Now OUR Work Begins

2009-01-20T21:00:00.004-05:00

I'm 41, I'm the first wave of Gen X, and you bet your ass I'm pissed.

With these words I inaugurated Wide Awake In Hoserland in June of 2006. I knew back then that the United States were in a mess, but I'm not sure that I realised how much damage was still to be done. It'll likely take a decade if not a generation to undo that damage. How history will judge George W. Bush remains to be seen. Whatever the judgment let the record of the time show that these were not our best days.

We can do better. We must do better.

I'm 44 now and today I stood in a room with over 1,000 people who cheered, cried and expressed hope for a new direction. It was a moment that I will never forget, and I suspect that this is true for many of us around the country if not the world. It's as though a large weight was lifted from our collective shoulders. The sense of history was palpable.

Now the work begins.

That first Hoserland post addressed many ills of our time; rising energy prices, human rights violations, accounts of treasonous activities, and the disintegration of constitutionally afforded rights. Some of these things President Obama can address. He can close Guantanamo Bay and ensure that the detainees receive fair trials with legal representation. He can issue executive orders against using practises that are classified as torture by the Geneva Conventions as interrogation techniques. He can attempt to make peace with our enemies. He can prohibit spying on fellow citizens without a court issued warrant.

But President Obama is not Superman or Jesus.

Our economic woes, energy dependence and degrading environment are not something that one man can address. Neither are the issues of gender based pay inequality, civil rights for the LGBT community, a strained health care system, or an eroding manufacturing base. This work we must all do. And believe me, it's going to take all of us.

Now more than ever, it is critical that we stay engaged.

• Write your congressional leaders as key issue come before Congress. Let them know where you stand.

• Do not let the environment of politics as usual continue.

• Engage in service based activities in your local community.

• Live a less wasteful life.

• Share.

I'm 44, I'm the first wave of Gen X, and you bet your ass, I'm hopeful.

There are times in history when we are given a unique opportunity. This feels like one of them. It's our opportunity.

So what are we going to do with it, America?

The Three Ring Circus That Is The 111th U.S. Senate

2009-01-06T22:21:00.006-05:00

It's a show that would make P.T. Barnum proud.

The 111th Congress officially started on Saturday, January 3 and the three ring circus has landed squarely on Capital Hill. Currently, the United States Senate appears to occupy the center ring. As we prepare to engage in one of the hallmarks of our democracy, the orderly transition of power, in an historical year no less, three senate seats remain unfilled.

In ring number one: Minnesota.

The Minnesota seat remains unsettled due to a razor close election that, after a labourious recount, appears to have resolved in favour of Democrat, Al Franken. But, because a lawsuit is pending by the possibly outgoing Senator, Norm Coleman, the Republican Minnesota governor will not certify the election. Fair enough, the lawsuit revolves around making sure that all votes are counted. Not exactly the way you want to start a new Congress, but if the last eight years of the Bush Administration have taught us anything it's that every vote counts. Right, Florida?

In ring number two: Illinois.

The vacant Illinois seat can be summed up as a giant pissing match between Senate leaders and the the indicted Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich. Mr. Blagojevich is currently under indictment for allegedly trying to sell the seat, but he is reticent to resign his office and the Illinois legislature has been snail snot slow about convening impeachment proceedings. End result, the governor made an appointment in the form of Roland Burris. By all accounts, Mr. Burris has been an honourable public servant and uninvolved in the scandal that Mr. Blagojevich finds himself in. The Senate, however, refuses to seat, Mr. Burris on the grounds that the Illinois Secretary of State has not certified the appointment. The Secretary refuses to do so and thus we have the first Congressional quagmire of the year. The thing is, the Secretary of State doesn't legally have the right to refuse to certify the appointment and Mr. Blagojevich, while clearly ethically challenged, is still the sitting governor. In other words, like it or not, he still legally has the right to make the appointment. So, denying Mr. Burris his seat appears to not only be wrong, but it also appears to be illegal. Seat the man and get about the business of the people.

And in the center ring . . . New York!

As ridiculous as the Minnesota and Illinois disputes are, it's my own state that appears ready to take the prize for Senatorial idiocy. Why? Because Governor David Patterson is apparently incapable of making a decision. When Senator Hillary Clinton was tapped to be Secretary of State in the Obama administration, Paterson announced that he would take his time in making a decision. It appeared to be a prudent approach given the high profile nature of the seat. As we wound into the holiday season, rumours started to spread that Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President Kennedy would be appointed. While moderately controversial, and discussed for about a week, the governor remained relatively mum on the subject. Christmas came and went. So did Hanukkah. And then New Year's Eve. And still there was no appointment. There still isn't. Why? No one appears to know. I don't know what the issue is, but I do know this. The game has started and New York deserves to have full representation. There's no recount issue here, no indictment or scandal of any kind. So let me put it plainly. Governor Paterson, get off your ass and make the call.

Not exactly an auspicious start to the 111th.

Cheney Confesses (And No Waterboarding Was Necessary)

2008-12-18T22:50:00.005-05:00

Waterboarding: the practise of restraining a prisoner and either dunking him/her or pouring water over him/her to simulate the experience of drowning.

Although the Bush Administration has steadfastly refused to acknowledge that any prisoners in the "war on terror" have been tortured, the past few years have uncovered a mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise. No matter that the opinion of a cadre of college law professors, international bodies and military experts, believe it to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions and thus a war crime, the administration won't budge.

Unfortunately, their assertion that waterboarding is not torture rings as true as Bill Clinton's claim that fellatio isn't sex.

The arrogance appears to have reached a new level when Vice President Dick Cheney acknowledged playing a central role in authorizing the technique. Said Cheney to ABC news, "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared."

Here's where it gets interesting.

While Mr. Cheney may not consider waterboarding to be torture, he appears not to know the history of his own country. In 1947, the United States prosecuted a Japanese military officer, Yukio Asano, for carrying out this very act on a U.S. civilian during World War II. Mr. Asano received a sentence of 15 years of hard labor. During the Vietnam war, a U.S. soldier was court marshaled for using the technique as was a soldier in the Spanish-American war. That's right, over 100 years ago the United States considered the practise to be torture.

So here's the rub. If historically the United States has punished it's own soldiers for using the technique and prosecuted a foreign fighter who used it for war crimes, it would seem that the U.S. has been definitive about whether or not waterboarding is torture. And since the answer is in the affirmative and others have been punished for using it, logically, we can conclude that by facilitating it, Mr. Cheney has authorized torture. Since torture constitutes a war crime, there is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

Mr. Cheney must be prosecuted as a war criminal. And with him, anyone else who was involved.

In The Era Of Hope, Some Things Don't Change

2008-11-28T19:23:00.003-05:00

The last eight years, at least from our leaders, have demonstrated the worst aspects of human behaviour. And to be sure, they've brought the United States to the brink of disaster on just about every front imaginable. To me, the current economic meltdown and the election of Barack Obama, seemed to indicate that people are finally looking for something different. And a lot of them are.

But not everyone, apparently.

The end of Thanksgiving ushers in the start of the (insert your holiday of choice or make one up here) season. You remember, that time of peace on earth and good will towards men? Unfortunately, the season also comes with an ugly underbelly as the focus for many seems to lock squarely on the acquisition of "things."

Yes, the quotes are meant to convey my disgust. Did it work?

Today is what is affectionately referred to in the retail world as "Black Friday." The term is meant to signify a shopping day where the registers ring so loudly that the balance sheet is solidly in the black. But it also has an ominous ring to it and nothing makes the point better than what happened today. This morning a temporary Wal-Mart employee was trampled to death as he attempted to unlock the doors of the store in Valley Stream, New York. It occurred at the ungodly hour of 5:00 a.m. when you would think that a person might be safe. Instead it seems that a two thousand people had lined up like pigs at the trough to gorge themselves on the latest bargains, or perhaps the slim hope of scoring a Nintendo Wii. When the man and his fellow workers began to open the door, the crowd surged forward, breaking the doors in the process. It took several minutes for help to get to him, but not before he was trampled reportedly by hundreds of shoppers.

What's the price of a man's life? Today it's apparently $100 of Chinese made crap.

Unfortunately, this is not the only report of consumerism gone lethal. At a Toys 'R' Us store in Palm Desert, California, two individuals were killed in a shooting. These tragedies are the outcome of a country that is too focused on material goods, a country that has mortgaged it's future and sold it's soul to foreign powers in the name of convenience and the saving of a dollar. Welcome to Ronald Reagan's America and George W. Bush's new world order.

I wonder how many others have to die at the alter of greed?

A Pretty Good Day, But Not For All

2008-11-05T20:54:00.003-05:00

Without a doubt, the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency is an historic moment for the United States of America. It's a day that many of us have long envisioned and one that hopefully will help to heal the deep racial wounds that slavery, segregation and hard fought civil rights battles have inflicted on our national psyche. It is a day when I am particularly proud to be an American, because on this day, we inched a little closer to reaching that noble ideal that "all men are created equal."

But as historical as this day is, we should not and cannot believe that the work is done.

For on the day that we elected the first African American President in U.S. history, we also witnessed the rights of other non-majority populations being suppressed. 3 states, California, Florida and Arizona had ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage. All three passed, with the closest margin being 4%. Arkansas, by a 14% margin, passed a measure that prohibits gay couples from adopting children. On the national level, at no time in the history of the United States, has the constitution been amended to take away or suppress civil rights. The initiatives now passed in these four states do just that. And we as a people are lesser for it.

So celebrate this remarkable time in our history. Let your spirits be lifted by the hope and the promise of true change. But remember, that the work is not done. Remember that there are those among us with reason not to celebrate today. For they have been told that they are somehow less worthy of the full blessings of citizenship.

And that diminishes all of us.

On The Eve Of An Election

2008-11-03T20:37:00.006-05:00

It's a simple question, America. Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?

If you are one of those still out there considering pulling the lever for the McCain-Palin ticket, or Republicans running for Congress, take a good hard look at their record. This is what 8 years of a republican presidency and 6 years of a republican controlled Congress have yielded.

On January 1, 2001 - The price of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.22/gallon.

Within the last 6 months we saw gas top $4.00 a gallon. How did that impact your or your family's budget? What about the cost to heat your home?

In 2000, the federal government had a budget surplus of $236,200,000,000.

As of September 9, 2008, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the United States would run a deficit of $407,000,000,000. How do you think that will impact our ability to create jobs?

On January 1, 2001 - The US unemployment rate was 3.7%

In September 2008 it was 6.1% and is expected to increase to 6.3% when the Labor Department releases it's jobs report in 4 days. Meanwhile, layoffs are up significantly in all sectors of the economy and are expected to continue. Some economists feel that the unemployment rate will reach 8% by the end of the year. How safe is your job or that of someone you care about?

On December 31, 2000, the annual trade deficit was $436,103,000,000

As of December 31, 2007 it stood at $794,484,000,000. What more needs to be said about it?

Still not convinced? Here's some additional data to chew on:

• The U.S. housing foreclosure rate is the highest it's been in 50 years.

• On January 2, 2001 the Dow Jones average stood at 10,646. Today it stands at 9,319. Don't think this is meaningful? Research the last time a President left office with the Dow lower than when he started.

And if this doesn't convince you, ask yourself one final question: When was the last time you saw the United States government fork over $700,000,000,000 to bailout corporate America.

The correct answer is never.

Chew on that tomorrow, when you're waiting in line thinking about casting your vote for the Republican party.

On Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Anti-Americanism

2008-10-21T13:55:00.004-04:00

Anti-Americanism

We've heard this phrase thrown around a lot lately, particularly after the last debate. John McCain was the first to hint at it when he suggested that Barack Obama's response to the oft mentioned, "Joe The Plumber" smacked of Socialism. Next up was Sarah Palin who on October 16 said at a rally, "We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation." Finally, there was Minnesota Representative and stepford wife in waiting, Michelle Bachmann who when asked by Hardball Host, Chris Matthews if Barack Obama has anti-American views, replied, "I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views."

Press Pause

Definition of Anti-Americanism: an opposition or hostility to the people, culture or policies of the United States.

Resume Play

The message here is that Barack Obama and those who support him, which by the way is likely to be a winning majority, are somehow less than full Americans because why? More people are engaging in the political process because they want America to fail? I take time to write about important topics because I hate America? And how about Barack Obama? He advocates for greater access to health care, ending war in Iraq, providing additional support for efforts in Afghanistan, tax breaks for people making under $250,000 year, for greater regulation and safeguards in the banking industry, and greater personal responsibility, because he's against American values?

Hello right wing idiots, these ARE American values!

I have had about as much as I can take of the Republican right wing and their radical Christian counterparts. I am as sick of them as I am of radical Islam. I am tired of people like Michelle Bachmann who wave the flag while supporting policies and programs that disenfranchise people and try to take away their rights. I've had my fill of them throwing labels like anti-American or socialist on people who disagree with them. And their hypocrisy has me to the point of vomiting. They've made a mess of America and we're left with wild budget deficits, runaway energy prices, an economy in near ruin and terrible standing in the international community.

It's as though they've left a burning bag of dog crap on the doorstep and gotten us to step in it. I'll help clean up their mess, but I'll be damned if I'm going to take their abuse while I do it.

So enough is enough. John McCain. You helped to create this mess and you did it for the second time. You know damn well that you advocated in the 1980s on behalf of Charles Keating and twenty years later you've learned nothing from the experience. Net result? The financial industry is a disaster. Sarah Palin, you can talk about anti-American parts of the country all you want, but your husband was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a separatist organization. You spoke at their convention and congratulated them on their work. How dare you imply that we are anything less than pro-American? Michelle Bachmann you were quoted as saying, "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." Be assured that they are going to start by focusing the white hot spotlight on you. And you better get used to the phrase, "Michelle Bachmann, one term member of Congress."

To quote an old Seinfeld episode, "It's go time." If you are as tired as I am at having your patriotism questioned by our elected officials, it's time to act. Call them, e-mail them, write about them to your friends, support their opponents and by all means vote against them.

Enough is enough. The gloves are off.

Note To John McCain: Put Up Or Shut Up

2008-10-18T21:55:00.004-04:00

John McCain, a man I once admired, has made some moves in recent months that have ranged from unconventional to seemingly downright daffy. There was the Sarah Palin VP pick, the recent financial crisis surprise campaign suspension and of course, who can forget that heartwarming hug with the president?

As the campaign winds down, and he finds his polling numbers circling the drain, he is making claims that would make a certain Looney Tunes duck seem well balanced.

In what clearly seems to be a last ditch attempt to avert the oncoming train wreck that November 4th seems poised to bring, the McCain/Palin campaign has taken to calling Barack Obama's policies, get this . . . Socialist. Now I can understand why Republicans who generally espouse limited government, deregulated markets and a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" philosophy have felt uneasy about democratic administrations. Certainly Franklin Roosevelt's new deal was a significant expansion of the government into just about every corner of America. Lyndon Johnson's great society is another noteworthy example of perhaps a well intended overreach. In fact up until Bill Clinton, I'll even concede the claim that Democrats have generally brought larger government. But in 2008? Is that really where McCain wants to go?

It begs an important question: Does he actually know what socialism is?

Now all evidence suggests that Sarah Palin has no idea what's going on, but Senator McCain has been part of the government for over twenty years. Did he somehow miss what's been going on in his own party as the economy turned to dust? Did he not notice the financing that JP Morgan Chase received in order to purchase Bear Stearns? Did he miss the giant cash infusion that AIG received and then immediately began to squander? What about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Was he napping when they were put under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)? And what about when after the United States government authorized the largest corporate bailout in history, the Treasury Department decided to buy equity in the banks? What was he doing then, daydreaming? No! He was right there every step of the way.

And he has the audacity to call Barack Obama a socialist? Who in the hell does he think he's fooling?

John McCain has once again shown that he will do or say whatever he thinks he needs to in order to win. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that it isn't working. Whether it be Joe Sixpack, Joe Plumber or Joe Mama, we're tired of lies and misdirection. So here's my advice to Mr. McCain: If you believe that you have plans and policies that will pull our country out of this mess, then talk about them. Give us the details, show us how it will work and what we can expect the outcome to be. Tell us how it's going to address the numerous challenges that your party has in large part created and convince us through your ideas, that we can trust the Republican brand.

But if you can't do that, then shut the hell up. And tell Sarah Palin to shut the hell up too. Because I, and many like me, are tired of your negativity, of your "style" over substance, and of hearing that we're not "real Americans."

If this is the best that you can offer me when my country is in the worst shape it's been in during my 43 years, then you are not only NOT the right person for the job, you are not honourable enough to hold the office.

Maverick Politics Just The Same Old Song And Dance

2008-10-12T12:56:00.007-04:00

Sarah Palin is a maverick. She's from Alaska and that's as far away from Washington politics as one is likely to get. They do things differently than those D.C. insiders. She, and John McCain, of course, will bring a new era of reform to the federal government. That's what Sarah Palin tells us. Of course it could be that Sarah Palin is just a lying sack of crap.

No wait, that's not quite right. A lying sack of crap can at least fertilize your garden.

In a story that has been virtually buried in the news cycle, the Alaskan ethics panel reported that, "Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda." The personal agenda is of course, the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, who had the authority to fire Palin's ex-Brother In Law, Trooper, Mike Wooten, something that the Palin's were trying to make happen.

The history of how the story unfolded is in itself interesting. Before being a national candidate, the governor agreed to fully cooperate with the investigation. Then, on September 16, the McCain-Palin campaign proclaimed the investigation "tainted" and said that they would no longer cooperate. Subpoenas were issued, including to Todd Palin, alleged to be a central figure in the matter, and the campaign quickly announced that they would be ignored.

More recently there was a reversal, and Mr. Palin did indeed testify. In due time the report was issued with the conclusion that Governor and Mr. Palin did in fact commit ethical breaches. Naturally they don't agree and their lawyers said, ""Sen. French and Sen. Green may have abused their government power by using public money to pursue a personal vendetta against the Governor, and then agreeing to pursue the PSEA attack against an administration that would not cave in to outrageous union demands." Interesting then that, Republican State Representative, John Coghill, a who once criticized the handling of the investigation, concluded that was "well-done professionally." Ultimately, the bipartisan Legislative Council, which commissioned the investigation adopted the 263-page public report unanimously.

So much for maverick politics.

There's A Reason It's Called "Trickle Down" Economics

2008-09-29T20:56:00.008-04:00

George Bush got it right.

Well, not the current version, but the original when in 1980, he referred to Ronald Reagan's economic policies as Voodoo Economics. You see, Mr. Reagan believed that if you removed regulations from businesses and amassed incredible amounts of wealth in the upper echelon of society, the upper echelon would in turn redistribute the wealth into the economy. It became known as "trickle down" economics. The name should have told us everything.

What Mr. Reagan was too stupid or too senile to realise, is that often the upper echelon accumulates wealth because it's greedy.

So, merrily America rolled through the 1980's deregulating industries. The results were felt in the banking, airline and communications industries as companies snapped up smaller rivals and got larger and larger. The Big 8 accounting firms, in place for most of the twentieth century, gave way to the Big 6, then the Big 5 and finally after the implosion of Arthur Anderson, the Big 4 of today. The trend happened in other industries as well.

Where are you Theodore Roosevelt?

How quickly a party can go off the rails in as little as one hundred years. No longer the party of that great trust-buster, Theodore Roosevelt (the maverick that John McCain wishes he were), Republican economic policies have replaced the concept of monopoly with that of oligopoly.

Oligopoly (def.) - a market situation in which each of a few producers affects but does not control the market.

Sound familiar? Like maybe a few investment banks that make shaky investments and then take the stock market down with them? Or how about two mortgage lenders that hold over 60% of the market. You know them, that fun loving couple, Fanny and Freddie.

So here were are on September 29, 2007 and Congress has failed to bail out the oligopical greedy and as a result the DOW plunged 777 points. Should they have done so? To be honest, I'm not sure. Perhaps America needs the pain of a major recession. Perhaps we need to understand the pain that our grandparents felt. Perhaps it's time to summon the ghost of Theodore Roosevelt and begin to bust trusts again.

What I do know for certain is that the results of Republican deregulation are these:

• Less independent media
• Fewer firms with greater ability to negatively impact the economy
• Higher barriers to innovation

Whether or not Congress ultimately bails out corporate greed is perhaps irrelevant. Because unless the root causes of the current crisis are addressed, it will eventually happen again. One only need to look at the Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980's to see that history is indeed repeating itself.

Morning in America has ended folks and Reagan's failed economic theory is to blame. The critical question is this: Are we as citizens willing to let the pigs run amok any longer?

The Bud Brothers Present, Sarah Palin: A Life In Song

2008-09-17T09:34:00.002-04:00

Those who know me well, know that I am a musician and filmmaker. Today's blog is a video of a new song that I wrote about that esteemed Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin. It's recorded by one of my musical groups, The Bud Brothers.

Enjoy it and be sure to pass it on to your friends!

Fear, Spin and Lies: The Fuel Of The Republican Crap Machine

2008-09-05T12:43:00.005-04:00

Anyone who watched both the Democratic and Republican conventions must be stunned by the difference in tone. With the exception of John McCain, who actually acknowledged that many of the troubles of the past eight years fall squarely on the shoulders of his party, the convention was bitter, snarky, deceitful and meant to induce fear. With the shape the United States is in, I guess the tried and true is all they have to go with.

Before I continue, hats off to John McCain for speaking against the grain of his party! You are an honourable man.

However, your party, at least in its current incarnation, is not honourable. Sarah Palin talked much about alternative energy, so let's take a moment and explore the fuel of the Republican Crap Machine.

Fear

As if all of the rhetoric about "radical Islamic fascists" hasn't been enough, they reached a new pinnacle in bad taste with their 9/11 Tribute film. Showing images of Osama bin Ladin firing weapons, the Iran hostages and the World Trade Center crumbling, this was no tribute. This was an attempt to fan the flames of religious fear. It was crass, it was manipulative and it was exploitative of the many who died on that day. How dare they!

Spin

The Republican convention talked a good deal about reforming Washington, how "insiders" would be shaking in their boots at the prospect of reformer Sarah Palin coming down from Alaska to clean up town. What they conveniently forgot to mention was that they have held Congress for ten of the last twelve years, and the Presidency for the last eight. Their convention championed the ideas and themes of the last eight years, while they professed that their candidates would enact a culture of change. How exactly will that work?

Lies

Heard at the convention (and found on the RNC webpage) . . .

Rudy Guiliani: A few years later — a few years later, he ran for the U.S. Senate. He spent most of his time as a celebrity senator: no leadership, no legislation to really speak of.

Sarah Palin: But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

The core fuel of the modern day Republican party is full out blatant lies. Maybe their base doesn't check the facts, but I assure you, I do. Their most egregious lies cluster around their allegations that Senator Obama hasn't done anything in Congress. What they fail to mention is that any bill in Congress needs to be supported by their members and signed into law by their President. So here's the record:

Senator Obama has sponsored 136 bills.

He has co-sponsored 653 bills.

Hardly a case of not doing anything. Now let's look at what some of those bills were:

S. 2590 : Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to ensure transparency in government spending.

S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

S.692 : A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals.

S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

S.114 : A bill to authorize resources for a grant program for local educational agencies to create innovation districts.

S.116 : A bill to authorize resources to provide students with opportunities for summer learning through summer learning grants.

S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

S.737 : A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 in order to measure, compare, and improve the quality of voter access to polls and voter services in the administration of Federal elections in the States.

S.823 : A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to facilitating the development of microbicides for preventing transmission of HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and for other purposes.

S.1084 : A bill to provide housing assistance for very low-income veterans.

S.1151 : A bill to provide incentives to the auto industry to accelerate efforts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles to lessen dependence on oil.

S.1222 : A bill to stop mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse, and under-development, and for other purposes.

S.1271 : A bill to provide for a comprehensive national research effort on the physical and mental health and other readjustment needs of the members of the Armed Forces and veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and their families.

S.1324 : A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuel sold in the United States.

S.1790 : A bill to make grants to carry out activities to prevent the incidence of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections among teens in racial or ethnic minority or immigrant communities, and for other purposes.

Conclusion: Sarah Palin, Rudy Guiliani, Lindsay Graham can say whatever they want about Mr. Obama's record and they can make sarcastic statements about community organizers, but that doesn't mean that they're right or being honest. The truth is the truth and it's available for anyone to check up on. Senator Obama's legislative efforts have been focused on helping returning military personnel, education, health and the environment.

Can the Republicans say the same?

Conservative Republicans And Their Abstinence Only Logic

2008-09-01T15:06:00.009-04:00

For years the Republicans have touted the virtue of abstinence only education. In fact, programs that promote it received a fair amount of funding during the Bush presidency. Current nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin, was a big proponent of it in her 2006 gubernatorial campaign. Never mind that studies, including one authorized by Congress have shown a zero percent effectiveness in decreasing teenage sexual activity. Conservative Republicans continue to bang the drum loudly for it.

Which makes the news that Bristol Palin, the seventeen year old daughter of Sarah Palin, is pregnant, particularly interesting.

Now let me be clear, as far as I'm concerned, the media needs to leave Ms. Palin alone. As she prepares for the birth of her child, she has enough to deal with, let alone the fact that her family is now in the national spotlight. She didn't ask for this attention and she doesn't deserve it. But, what her case does underscore is the need for the very education that her mother would deny young adults.

The question is: Why?

The answer is simple. Morality. The proponents of abstinence only sexual education base their argument on religious values rather than scientific data. They argue that comprehensive sex ed encourages promiscuity, promotes HIV and increases teen pregnancy.
Perhaps they should ask themselves, then, why Bristol is pregnant.

In the end, it is really about power. The power of fundamentalists to impose their religious views on the masses. These are the people who are the first to support the "war on terror" because of the need to defeat "radical Islam." What they fail to realise is that they are mirror images of each other. Sure, fundamentalists in the U.S. don't look as scary. They look like us, they speak our language and sometimes, they even sound reasonable. But deep down the message is the same: Our policies are formed by our understanding of the word and will of God. And if you don't share our beliefs, you don't understand the word and will of God.

The difference between John Hagee and Mullah Omar is smaller than most people think.

Many will say that dragging Bristol Palin into the national debate is wrong. Barack Obama himself said that families should be off limit, especially the children of candidates. He is right in the sense that Ms. Palin's pregnancy and the choices she makes regarding it are her own. But the issue that it calls to light and the choices that her mother made around the formulation of her own policies and values are not.

So leave Bristol Palin out of the discussion, but please do have a discussion about what type of sex ed your child should receive in school. And please explore deeply not only where your candidates stand on their positions, but also why.

Sarah Palin. Really, John McCain? Really???

2008-08-31T17:11:00.007-04:00

When I first heard reports on CNN about the mysterious flight from Alaska and speculation that governor Sarah Palin might be John McCain's pick for Vice President, my thought was, "clever decoy." After all, with the mountain of criticism he and his party have thrown Barack Obama's way for being too inexperienced to be President, there was no way he'd choose someone with a mere 18 months of gubernatorial experience. Right?

Wrong!

It seems that Senator McCain decided to give the dice one big assed roll to see if America was paying attention. No doubt his intentions were to a) shore up his reputation for being a maverick, b) try to woo perceived disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters, c) add someone with better conservative credentials than he himself possesses, d) add a reform minded Washington outsider to the ticket and e) try to capture some of the young energy that the Obama campaign is generating.

Years from now it is likely that this will be viewed as one of the biggest misreads in the history of presidential campaigns.

There's being a maverick and there's coming across as reckless. Senator McCain appears to have crossed that line. As countless others have already pointed out, the man is 72 years old with a checkered health history. By selecting someone with such limited political experience, he's put the "heartbeat away from the Presidency" argument in play. Curious judgment call.

But stranger still is his apparent belief that the Palin pick will somehow engage Hillary Clinton supporters. Governor Palin is an anti-abortion, pro-NRA, anti-gay rights type of Republican. In other words, the "Anti-Clinton." Does he really think that Hillary supporters will vote against their best interests simply because Governor Palin shares the same genitalia? Not exactly the strongest analysis of the data!
The best thing that can be said for the pick is that it will energize the aspects of the Republican party that feel disenfranchised by the selection of Mr. McCain as the nominee. But whether that will be enough to get them out to the voting booths in November, remains to be seen.

Perhaps the most troubling thing about the pick is that it does not seem as though Ms. Palin was well vetted. Republican Alaskan leaders have been in the spotlight a lot lately for a slew of ethics improprieties and indictments. Right or not, the media will focus their attention on Alaska every time the Ted Stevens or Don Young indictments go the next step. Is that really where the McCain campaign wants the national spotlight? True, the governor does not seem tied up in those particular scandals, but there are rumblings that she may have used her authority to get a former brother in law fired. Two days ago that might have been an issue for the local media. The bloodhounds will be out now.

Perhaps Governor Palin is a great up and coming Republican. Perhaps she will even be their presidential nominee one day. But putting her on the national ticket now seems like a move of style over substance. Of course the Republicans will try to package it as bold and historic. If you're the first party to have a woman on the ticket, that's historic. If you're the first party to have a woman almost win (or win) your nomination, that's historic. If Ronald Reagan had put a woman on the ticket in 1980, that would have been historic. But if you put a woman on the ticket after the opposing party has done both of these things, and then don't even choose the most qualified woman your party has, you run the risk of looking both cynical and stupid. Congratulations, John McCain, you just hit the daily double.

And history will view it as the last desperate act of a party doing anything it can to hold power.

Take Your Hands Off The Lever And Slowly Back Away From The Economy

2008-07-28T23:41:00.002-04:00

With a scant 175 days left in the Bush presidency, you would think that there wasn't much left for him to destroy. How wrong you would be!

Today, the White House has forecast a budget deficit for 2009 of $482 billion dollars. To provide some perspective, each trillion dollars is equal to 1,000 millionaires. Do the math and you'll quickly discover that we're not exactly talking chump change here. This figure does not include the 80 billion dollars that supports the war effort. If the forecast is correct, it would shatter the previous record of $413 billion, which was also set by the Bush Administration in 2004.

While, esteemed Republicans like Phil Gramm write the state of the economy to pessimism, the real data suggests something much uglier.

The job market is -438,000 jobs this year.

Gas prices while not at a record, are nevertheless well over $4.00 a gallon.

The Federal Reserve has identified lowering inflation as a key objective.

The housing foreclosure rate according to research firm, RealtyTrac, is up 121% from last year.

And then there's Wall Street. A look into the year ahead seems pretty grim and don't be surprised when unemployment creeps up significantly, new college hires decrease, interest rates rise to combat inflation, the housing foreclosure rate increases to 150% and gas stays right where it is.

The best advice that I can give to either presidential candidate is to get their economic team together. Not in 2009, but now. And here's a hint, you may want to put Robert Rubin, arguably our best Treasury Secretary since Alexander Hamilton, on it. There is not a minute to spare.

As for Mr. Bush, I have just one simple thought.

Take Your Hands Off The Lever And Slowly Back Away From The Economy.

New FISA Bill Misses The Point

2008-07-10T12:52:00.005-04:00

I don't envy the Senate or Barack Obama on this one. Technology has changed a lot in the thirty years since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was first passed and, with it, the world. The amendments to FISA, passed by both the Senate and the House of Repesentatives, are an attempt to acknowledge these changes and to give security agencies both tools and guidelines with which to work. On the balance it seems an honest effort and one that the President is willing to sign into law.

As debate rages over whether the updated FISA is actually a good deal for the American people, two areas seem to be generating the most discussion:

That the law provides retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that gave private information to the government, without a warrant.
That Barack Obama by voting for the revised bill, seems to have reversed some previously held positions.

Yes, as the McCain campaign charges, Senator Obama does seem to have compromised his position on this, and that’s a shame. It takes a little of the luster off his candidacy. However, considering that Senator McCain didn't bother to vote at all on the bill, it seems to me that they might reconsider the wisdom of putting the issue under the spotlight. So, while worth noting when assessing the candidates in the upcoming election, their vote (or lack of) is an ancillary issue.

As for the telecommunications companies, it could be argued that in the shadow of 911, they deserve the benefit of the doubt. While we might hope (and have every right to expect) that they would take a stand against giving over our private records to the government without the benefit of a warrant, in the context of the time, I understand why they did. Yes, it should be an issue for the courts to decide, but it too is ancillary to the real issue, which is this.

The Bush Administration, after 911, knowingly and willfully broke existing law and violated the Fourth Amendment rights of numerous Americans.

So rather than spend our efforts trying to hold the telecommunications companies accountable, we should be petitioning, cajoling and berating our elected congressional officials to hold the president and the Executive Branch accountable.

Until that happens, all of the FISA amendments in the world aren't going to matter.

Jeffersonian Ideals Trump Scalian Cynicism

2008-06-12T18:43:00.013-04:00

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law, effectively dumping the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay and other off shore sites into an unchecked legal black hole. The law gave the government sweeping powers including; determining whether interrogation methods violated international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the ability to present hearsay evidence (not legal in U.S. Courts), and the imposition of death sentences. And just to keep things interesting, it did not require that detainees be granted legal counsel or have the right to challenge their detentions in Federal Court. A veritable slam-dunk if you were on the government side of the case.

Today the Supreme Court took a peek at the U.S. Constitution and set things right. Well 5/9ths of them anyway.

Of course, right wing commentators and their well educated listeners railed against the ruling and offered insightful comments such as this by one of Rush Limbaugh's ditto-heads, "I'm absolutely sick of the liberals and the leftists raping our country of all our rights and giving it to foreigners," but that was to be expected. Yep, liberals and leftists are running amok in America raping the Constitution and stripping us of our rights. Oh wait, it's the President and his administration that are doing that.

What amazes me is how little faith the President, Rush, today's ditto head and others of their ilk seem to have in the foundations of the country they claim so much to love. From their lamenting, you would think that terrorists are regularly set free to roam the streets of our towns, raping, pillaging and salting the earth as they leave. The record in fact is quite different. The four individuals charged with the 1993 World Trade Center bombings were convicted and received life sentences. Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, in 1995 was convicted of seditious conspiracy for encouraging attacks against U.S. civilian targets and received a life sentence. Terry Nichols, a convicted accomplice in the Oklahoma City bombing received a life sentence, and Timothy McVeigh the convicted bomber was put to death. Each of these defendants enjoyed the rights afforded by the Constitution and it would be hard to argue that the defendants did not have to account for their crimes.

What the Court did today was ensure the basic legal protections that all of the detractors of this decision enjoy.

It was the right decision and it is a decision that subscribes to our higher ideals. It is a decision that ensures the United States of America stands for something. It is a decision that honors the freedoms for which so many Americans have sacrificed their lives. Perhaps Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion said it best, "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law."

Unfortunately this view is not shared by all. Justice Antonin Scalia in a dissenting opinion declared that the decision, "warps our Constitution," and that our, "nation will live to regret what the court has done today."

How sad that, like that angry ditto head, Justice Scalia too has so little faith in the Constitution he interprets and the founding principles upon which the nation he serves were built.

If It Looks Like A Cult And Acts Like A Cult

2008-05-28T17:48:00.007-04:00

White House spokesperson, Dana Perino, characterised herself and
the White House as "puzzled" by excerpts just released from former spokesperson Scott McLellan's new book. The question is, why? While this blog has often noted and commented on the alternate reality that seems to envelope 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the allegations in Mr. McLellan's book do not appear to be particularly shocking. It's just that he had the bad taste to confirm them while Mr. Bush happens to still be in office.

Let's see here . . . the president doesn't possess a curious mind . . . check . . . Cheney and Rumsfeld are bad . . . uh-huh . . . Hurricane Katrina was a huge disaster . . . o.k. . . and the administration lied about the Valerie Plame affair. Yep, that pretty much covers most of the highlights.

These topics have been well ruminated on by progressive news sites, written about in blogs such as this one, and mildly covered by the mainstream media. Some of the issues have even been the subject of Congressional hearings and investigations. In other words, they are not exactly unknown to a large portion of the American populace or the greater world for that matter. What should puzzle Ms. Perino is not that Scott McLellan finally fessed up, but that it's taken him so long.

The problem is that everything in the White House is self-referential. If they say something is true, then it is and everyone believes it. In this context, truth isn't so much about what is true as it is a tenet of faith, like creationism and the effectiveness of abstinence only sex education. Those in the Bush administration defend this truth vigorously and wash it down with the Kool-Aid, which makes it infinitely easier to swallow.

It's all part of being in the cult.

Thankfully, as is the way with many cults, once out of their clutches, a former member's ability to grasp reality appears to return. And when that day comes for the currently puzzled Dana Perino, we'll look forward to reading her book.

Birds Of A Feather Flock To Beijing

2008-04-13T16:53:00.000-04:00

The "People's Republic" of China has a lot riding on the 2008 Olympics. Many in the media have characterised it as China's coming out party, their opportunity to establish themselves as an elite presence in the modern 21st century world.

But China has a problem. They're not.

While they may have economic prosperity, largely due to the inability of the citizenry of the United States to stop gorging themselves on cheap and dangerous Chinese made products, their modernity seems to end their. If one takes a deeper look at the Chinese government we find a body that looks remarkably similar to that of the Mao era. A communist government still exists, freedom of religion and expression remain suppressed, and arrests for dissent are firmly in place. Hardly an enlighted 21st century nation.

So freaked out is the Chinese government about the games that they have been kicking it old school. Websites critical to the government have been banned and dissent in occupied Tibet have been met with violence and arrest. In China's moment to show that they've evolved beyond the heavy handed, jack booted tactics beloved in the Mao and of course, by the former Soviet Union, they've blown it. In fact, their human rights record seems to be as bad as ever.

With that in mind, several European world leaders have decided to publicly express their displeasure by boycotting the open ceremonies of the games. For a country that is extremely concerned about their image, this is a huge slap in the face. And it's likely to be damn effective. The United States as one of the largest consumer of Chinese made goods, though no longer that the standard bearer for human rights, has an opportunity to send a very strong message.

And in typical Bush Administration fashion, they're about to blow it.

National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, on morning talk shows indicated that President Bush will attend the games stating that boycotting them would be, "http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/13/us.olympics.ap/index.html">"a cop out". He believes that quiet diplomacy is what the situation requires. Right, because that's been working so well. What the situation requires is loud and active diplomacy. A diplomacy that says, enough is enough. Human rights matter, fair trade matters, religious freedom matters and until you, China, recognise it, we're going to call you on it every step of the way and in every venue.

By attending the opening ceremonies, President Bush simply validates for China that their behaviour is acceptable. Given Mr. Bush's horrendous track record, perhaps it is.

King George Has The Guano Touch

2008-03-18T12:39:00.011-04:00

That is to say, everything he touches turns to fertilizer. And I'm not just talking about the stuff that comes out of his mouth. With less than a year left, I thought that Mr. Bush had applied his Guano Touch to just about everything that he could. Turns out I was wrong.

But first, let's review a small sampling of his highlights:

He turned a $236,200,000,000 budget surplus into a $263,000,000,000 budget deficit.
The war in Iraq has gone on longer than World War II, World War I, or the Civil War and by the end of 2008 will have cost more than 800 billion dollars.
US casualties from Operation Iraqi Freedom approach 4,000. The Army according to their own experts is stretched and troops over the course of the war have received inadequate armor, substandard water and poor medical care when they return.
Through the use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding our standing in the world community has been damaged. These violate Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, specifically; Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.

On these points alone Bush's touch would put King Midas to shame.

And that's the edited version. But it turns out that all of the, miscalculations, manipulations and acts of malfeasance were merely the appetizer and entree'. For dessert, Mr. Bush is serving up the coup de'grace:

Recession

Now I'm not talking your average, sluggish economy type of recession. I'm talking about a "holy crap, one of the major investment banks went down for the count, better fasten your seatbelts it's going to be a bumpy ride," type of recession.

The evidence:

Energy prices, both for crude oil and at the gas pump, are at an all-time high.
The value of the dollar against foreign currencies has dropped dramatically. As this is written, one U.S. dollar will get you; .63 Euros, .49 British Pounds, 99 Japanese Yen (the lowest it's been in 12 years) and get this, .99 Canadian Dollars. That's right, our currency and that or our neighbour to the North is essentially equal!
A 738 billion dollar trade deficit, which is not the record. 2006 holds that honour.
The collapse of Bear Stearns, a top five global investment bank. Why is this important? These are the organizations that move capital into the economy on a grand scale.
The delinquency and foreclosure rate for home mortgages is 7.3 percent, the highest it's been since the Mortgage Bankers Association began tracking it in 1979.

Now the Bush White House will tell you now that we're in a severe economic downturn and the truth is, whether it's technically a recession or a downturn, it's getting ugly out there.

Here's why:

The President largely ignored developing a cogent domestic agenda. And when he was paying attention to domestic things at all, he focused on hot button issues; defense of marriage acts, stem cell research, immigration.

While some of these issues are worthy of debate, they tend to be emotional issues that don't really impact the average American on the day to day. What does affect the average American is the rising cost of healthcare, rising energy prices, jobs that are heading out of country, etc., etc., etc. These are foundation blocks of a modern economy and they impact a nation's long term fortunes.

In the end analysis, had the President put effort into developing sound policies instead of throwing a small amount of money at people through tax cuts, we would likely be in a very different economic situation.

Spitzer's Got Me Spittin' Mad

2008-03-10T16:59:00.005-04:00

Eliot Spitzer, what in the hell were you thinking?

That's the question that's at the top of my mind at the moment. On a day when I knew that I'd be commenting on something, the last thing I expected it to be was a prostitution scandal involving a Governor with a mostly squeaky clean reputation. When I awoke this morning, the news seemed rife with several plum topics, any of which would have been worthy of examination and perhaps even a small rant. Among my choices were:

Any of these Republican led disgraces and catastrophes would have been a suitable topic, but no, instead the headline stealer is my own, apparently, whore mongering Governor. I wrote to him today and here's what I wanted to say:

Eliot **G-DDamn** Spitzer. You stupid, hypocritical motherf**cker.

Here's what I actually said:

"Dear Gov. Spitzer:

It is with deep regret that I find myself writing to you today. I greatly admire the work that you did as state Attorney General and when the time came to cast my vote for Governor, I gladly pulled the lever for you.

As we are just over 14 months into your term, I have become increasingly concerned about your leadership. Early on, it was alleged that you ordered the State police to investigate Senator Bruno, with the apparent hope that he might be caught in illegal activity. While I am no fan of Mr. Bruno's, I found this allegation troubling. Today, I was stunned to hear of your alleged involvement with prostitutes and of what is just short of an admission of guilt on your part. I am used to reading about corruption and law breaking on the part of our Republican counterparts, but from a Democrat and one of your reputation, I am frankly, saddened and disappointed.

If this allegation is true, you have disgraced your office, our party and perhaps most importantly, yourself. I hope with all sincerity that you are able to mend the breach within your family and that together you can heal the hurt. However, I do not feel that in light of this situation it is either tenable or desirable for you to remain as Governor of New York State. Unless you can assure your constituents that these allegations are entirely false, it is in the best interest of New York State that you resign your office."

I expect better from my elected officials, regardless of their party affiliation. In a time when corruption, homophobia and religious zealotry seems to have defined the Republican Party, I especially expect better from members of my own.

If all is as it appears to be, Governor Spitzer needs to leave office, and he needs to do so now.

Death Penalty For 9/11 Suspects? Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!

2008-02-11T12:48:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press is reporting today that Pentagon officials have announced their intent to seek capital punishment against six terror suspects who are alleged to have instigated the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington D.C. Included in the six is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the attacks.

It is a colossal mistake.

The morality issue of the death penalty aside, the men will be tried within the military tribunal system that was set up by the Bush administration. The system, though approved by Congress, has been widely criticized for its rules on legal representation for suspects, hearings behind closed doors and past allegations of inmate abuse at Guantanamo.

Don’t misunderstand where I’m coming from. The crimes of September 11, 2001 rank among the most heinous in United States history and the callous disregard for human life that they displayed certainly could put them in the higher echelons of global atrocities. It’s just that there is little upside to executing the perpetrators.

1) Something with a penalty as final as an execution should only be conducted when the accused is in possession of his/her full legal rights. In this case, it should be the full rights to which someone accused of a capital crime in the U.S. criminal system would be entitled. To do anything less is unworthy of the United States.

2) Executing the perpetrators is unlikely to serve as a deterrent, but rather as a rallying point. Nothing resonates more with fanatics than martyrs. They inspire the faithful and move those who are neutral to action. In short, it makes execution a stupid strategy.

3) It's too damn easy. While I am a death penalty opponent on moral grounds, I am also a pro-life in prison advocate on punitive grounds. In the case of al Qaida members, I don't believe that death is a particularly big fear. A long life in an American prison, being held by your fellow inmates with the same regard as a child rapist, now that's something to lose sleep over. Hell, I'd go so far as to build a prison with the rubble of the World Trade Center and wallpaper each cell with photos of the victims and their families.

Don't think that would get to them? I’m not so sure . . .

But thanks to the old testament style of the Bush Administration, we'll manage to create icons for future terrorists, fail to live up to our principles as a nation and let the perpetrators off the hook easily. There’s a trifecta of which we can all be proud.

Like cigarettes, super-sized Big Mac meals and reality T.V., this course of action may feel good in the moment, but assuredly, it will come back to bite us in the collective ass.

In That Olympic Spirit, China Leads The World In Dissident Arrests!

2008-01-30T11:57:00.000-05:00

While George Bush, Mitt Romney and other empty-headed Republican blowhards continue to spout platitudes about freedom and patriotism, while at the same time attempting to undermine them at every turn, there exists in the world individuals who really know what these words mean.

Meet Mr. Hu Jia.

Mr. Hu is an average citizen of the "Peoples Republic of" China. He and his wife Zeng Jinyan live in an apartment with their beautiful newborn daughter, Qianci. Like many people of the world, Mr. Hu blogs on the internet and uses modern telecommunications tools such as Skype. Unfortunately, in the "Peoples Republic of" China, he is not free to do so without the risk of harassment and arrest from his government.

Who Says The Chinese Government Doesn't Have A Sense Of Humour?

After spending almost two years under house arrest in the ironically named Bo Bo Freedom City, for engaging in these very activities, on December 27, Mr. Hu was dragged away by the state police on the charge of "subverting state power." He had become involved with the case of Yang Chunlin, a former factory worker who organized a petition campaign entitled, “We Want Human Rights, Not the Olympics." The petition was part of an effort to help local farmers seek legal redress over land confiscated by the Chinese government.

While The Petition Wasn't Wildly Popular With The Chinese Government, It Did Manage To Collect 10,000 Signatures.

As China prepares for the Olympics, it seems that they are also preparing to clean up any hint of dissent within their culture. There have been crackdowns on internet sites and arrests of dissidents. Reporters Without Borders has stated that China has jailed 51 online dissidents, the most in the world, and blocked more than 2,500 Web sites in 2007. But wait, there's more. So paranoid is the Chinese government that even Mr. Hu's newborn daughter is under house arrest, making her possibly the world's youngest political prisoner.

If George Bush Loves Freedom So Well . . . Ah, Forget It.

It's time for the Republican Party, the neo-conservatives, the religious right and every other flag waiving, SUV driving with the magnetic ribbons on the back, freedom loving, "God Bless America" spewing American to man up and put an end to this. It's time for the mouthpieces of "American Values" to transform their voluminous rhetoric into action. Note to O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Hannity: If you are not willing to speak out against a baby and her mother being under house arrest for expressing dissent, then it is time for you to shut the f-bomb up.

What's it gonna be, America? Dangerous, but really cheap goods at your local Wal-Mart or our founding values? If you chose the latter, here's what you can do about it:

1) Stop buying products made in China.

2) Let companies that are outsourcing jobs to China know that you will no longer buy those products.

3) Write your congressional representative and demand that the United States boycott the Beijing Olympic games.

4) If the United States does not boycott the games (and they probably won't), refuse to watch them.

If you chose the really cheap goods option then, frankly, you deserve all the toxic lead paint that the Chinese government can ship into your house.

The bottom line is this: We as a nation are helping the Chinese government engage in repression of the basic civil rights that we enjoy.

The question is, are you going to participate?

Not Up For Debate, The Debates Are Pretty Worthless

2008-01-04T13:32:00.002-05:00

The 2008 presidential campaign appears to have had more candidate debates in recent memory, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's been a good thing. In spite of the fact that the early debates featured all of the candidates in a party's field, you couldn’t help noticing that the "fringe candidates" always seemed to be on the fringe of the stage and the "front runners" always seemed to be well, front and center. Then there was the format. Assuming that the typical American attention span is about 45 seconds, the affairs offered plenty of sound bytes and little actual debate.

Blame the media outlets.

The vaunted fourth estate, once charged with keeping our government honest, has let us down. Let's face it, moderators such as Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer are celebrities in their own right, with images and ratings to maintain. Even the “historic” YouTube debates were laughable, their historic significance seeming to derive from the fact that CNN told us they were. It’s a blurring of entertainment and news that makes it hard to distinguish where one ends and the other begins.

And whether it be CNN or Fox News, none of it is fair, balanced or unbiased.

In perhaps the most recent mark of shame, ABC News has decided that they now get to determine the threshold that a declared candidate must meet in order to participate in their debate. The Associated Press reported today that three candidates have been cut from their upcoming debates for failing to meet benchmarks of support. They are Mike Gravel, Duncan Hunter and Dennis Kucinich. Said ABC political news director, David Chalian, "In previous debates where the stage was more crowded you had to make sure all of the candidates got equal time. Here you will have more time to go in depth on the issues."

While Mr. Chalian's point may be true, the fundamental question is this: Why does he get to decide?

Could it because he's beholden to his advertisers? Advertisers who perhaps will fare better should one of the "front runners" be elected?

The bottom line: The only way to make the debates work is to change the format.

What we need is a series of topical debates such as foreign policy, the economy and the environment. Then we need to do a draw system where one randomly drawn candidate debates another randomly drawn candidate, picked from the bowl, right there, live on stage. "Senator Clinton, your opponent is Representative Kucinich." "Governor Romney, your opponent is Mayor Guiliani." Give them the opportunity to make an opening statement. Give them 1 question. Give them 15 minutes and let them go.

Until that time our corporations and media will decide the most acceptable candidates and our candidates will regurgitate empty headed sound bytes for us to swallow.

And by the way, if you don't think that ABC should be doing this, maybe you'd like to drop them a note. Contact ABC.

It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like A Coverup, All Through The White House

2007-12-19T12:45:00.001-05:00

Each time an allegation of improper conduct by the Bush administration comes to light, I find myself wondering if it will be the one that brings the Bush presidency crashing to the ground. As the story of the destruction of CIA tapes depicting the interrogation of al Qaeda suspects comes into focus, it seems like things may have reached critical mass. The truth is, they should have happened a long time ago.

For those of you keeping score at home, here's a brief recount of the improprieties involving this latest scandal.

1) The interrogations were conducted in secret prisons abroad. This avoided a law that prohibits this kind of treatment of prisoners on U.S. soil.

2) The tapes are reported to depict interrogation techniques that are widely viewed as torture and which violate the Geneva Conventions, specifically Article 3 which prohibits, "Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;" The administration contends that waterboarding does not amount to cruel treatment.

3) In June 2005, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy ordered the administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

4) The administration failed to comply on the grounds that the tapes were not made at Guantanamo Bay. However, the existence of CIA secret prisons was not widely known until November of 2005.

Every step of the way, the administration has attempted to justify its egregious behaviour by way of technicality and to date it's gotten away with it. This time, however, things may be different.

As news of the tapes' destruction broke, the administration assumed a defensive position. First Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to cooperate with Congressional requests for information. Then, the administration warned off both Judge Kennedy and congressional investigators on the grounds that their inquiries would interfere with a joint Justice Department/CIA investigation. Both have decided to continue their investigations.

And, now for your consideration, the tipping point . . .

The New York Times reported today that four senior Bush lawyers including Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers participated in discussions between 2003 and 2005 on the destruction of the tapes. The White House had previously denied such extensive conversations.

Sing along kids: "It's beginning to look a lot like a cover-up, all through the White House!"

And if history is any teacher, the public will not stand for a cover-up or even the hint of one. It took down Richard Nixon, it hurt the Reagan Administration and it paralyzed Bill Clinton's presidency. It may well take down George W. Bush, and it's about damn time.

Mitt Romney, The Latest Republican Model In A Long Line Of Lemons

2007-12-06T12:42:00.000-05:00

I have no doubt that presidential candidate Mitt Romney considers himself to be a man of faith. Today he made his pitch to the American people as to whether his being a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) should be something on which he is evaluated as a presidential candidate. The truth be told, he made his pitch to conservative Christians who for so long have had a strangle hold on the Republian party. It's sad that we live in a time where he feels that he has to. But it isn't religion that is the problem with Mitt Romney as a candidate, it's the man himself.

There's a big difference between being a Mormon and being a moron. Unfortunately, Romney doesn't seem to know it.

Without a doubt, Mr. Romney looks Presidential. He's tall, good looking and has impeccible hair. When on message, his voice sounds commanding. But that's where it stops. When asked a direct question his answers are too often vague, evasive or just plain wrong.

When directly asked in the recent YouTube debate if he supported homosexuals openly serving in the military, he dodged the question saying, "this isn't that time." When asked by another questioner if waterboarding meets his definition of torture, he said, "I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use." When asked by a questioner holding a Bible, "Do you believe every word of this book?," he danced again saying, "I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely. And I try to live by it as well as I can, but I miss in a lot of ways. But it's a guide for my life and for hundreds of millions, billions of people around the world. I believe in the Bible." When pressed by moderator Anderson Cooper, Romney said, "You know -- yeah, I believe it's the word of God. The Bible is the word of God. I mean, I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it."

Three direct questions. Three direct dodges

It supports the criticisms that Mr. Romney has no true moral center, but rather that his beliefs are fluidly forged by whatever he perceives as the politically expedient position.

But there are some things about Romney that are not so murky. For example, his feeling on habeous corpus. When debating torture during the debate he tipped his hand a little, saying, "I don't want the people that are carrying out attacks in this country to be brought into our jail system and to be given legal representation in this country."

In his speech this morning, he demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of our founding principles. Said Romney, “The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust." Well not exactly. Mr. Romney implies that the ideas of "One nation under God" and the slogan that adorns our coinage, "In God We Trust" have direct lineage to the founders. It's what the Christian right wants to hear, but it's patently false. "One Nation Under God" was adopted as a national slogan in 1954 and "In God We Trust" didn't appear on a coin until 1864.

As George Bush has demonstrated, a person who is vague with the facts can be a dangerous person indeed!

And maybe that's what Mr. Romney is, a better looking model of George Bush. And George Bush was a better looking model of Dan Quayle. When you look under any of these hoods all that's there is an empty hampster wheel.

You've been warned, America.

Wrong Again, Naturally

2007-12-04T16:39:00.001-05:00

Where weapons are concerned, it seems that George Bush just can't get anything right. After leading us to war in Iraq based on bad or manufactured intelligence, it now seems that all of his assertions about Iran's nuclear capabilities are also incorrect. In light of the most recent national intelligence estimate, which represents the consensus of all intelligence agencies, one might think that it's time to ratchet down the rhetoric. Maybe have a cooling off period, find a time to talk and dare I say, perhaps even find some common ground.

To quote Steve Martin's Saturday Night Live character, Theodoric of York . . . "NAAAAAHHH!"

Said the President, "Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." In other words, in spite of the current evidence, not only does the President believe that Iran continues to develop a program but he continues to entertain the possibility of pre-emptive military action.

No weapons? No problem!

If there's one thing that can be said about George Bush, it's that he's consistent. It's a hallmark of his administration. If politics were a sport, his consistency might put him in a hall of fame. Statues and monuments might be built and commemorative coins issued in his honour.

But there will be no hoopla or fanfare for Mr. Bush. Because unfortunately, where consistency is concerned, Mr. Bush is consistently wrong.

Jesus To Bill Sali: Stop Telling Everyone That You Know Me!

2007-11-05T21:31:00.000-05:00

This evening while channel surfing, I landed on CSPAN which was broadcasting live from the floor of the House of Representatives. Excellent, I thought, an opportunity to check in on what our wards in Washington are up to. Let's face it, with Turkey and the Kurdish area of Iraq on the bubble of all out conflict, Pakistan going into meltdown and lots of poor children without health insurance, surely they would be discussing something of import.

(Sung to the tune played by the chimes of Big Ben and maybe your doorbell) . . . Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong . . . (Big Breath) . . . Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Instead of the people’s business, I was treated to five minutes from Idaho Representative Bill Sali on why love matters and his belief that Jesus loves him. Now I have no issue with an individual’s faith and if there's one thing the world needs more of, it's love. In fact, I'm a big fan of love. But I'm also a big fan of the idea of the separation between church and state. So when an elected official decides to take the time he's allotted for doing the people's business and instead does a commercial for Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, Krishna, Buddha, Moses, the Force or whatever, it pisses me off.

It especially pisses me off when said Representative espouses and endorses the values of a particular deity, but votes in ways that are incongruent with those values.

So let's see how the votes cast by Representative Sali stack up against the values of Jesus, a noted protector of children, the poor, the downtrodden and of course, a proponent of peace.

• January 9, 2007 - Vote 15: H R 1: A bill to implement many of the remaining recommendations proposed by the 9/11 Commission in 2004. One of the provisions of this bill was to give faster and more efficient funding to first responders, the ones who would render aid during a time of crisis. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• January 10, 2007 - Vote 18: H R 2: A bill to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years. In other words raising the standard of living for the poorest of the poor. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• January 12, 2007 - Vote 23: H R 4: A bill to allow the government to negotiate directly with drug makers for lower prescription drug prices for individuals using Medicare. In other words lower the cost of medicine for the poor and the elderly. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• January 17, 2007 - Vote 32: H R 5: A bill to lower the interest rate on student loans. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• January 18, 2007 - Vote 40: H R 6: A bill to repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. In other words, a bill to recoup some of the record profits that oil companies have made since Hurricane Katrina and maybe use them to help people. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• May 24, 2007 - Vote 425: H R 2206: A bill to provide funding in Iraq without setting withdrawal deadlines for troops, but rather “benchmarks for progress that the Iraqi government must meet to continue receiving reconstruction aid”. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• July 27, 2007 - Vote 757: H R 1: An amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that would require the inspection of all cargo traveling on passenger aircrafts and establish the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

• August 8, 2007 - Vote 836: S 1927: An amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 that would give U.S. spy agencies expanded power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order. Representative Sali’s Vote: Yes

• September 25, 2007 - Vote 906: H R 976: A bill to fund and expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Representative Sali’s Vote: No

It would seem that when the cameras are on, Representative Sali chooses to use his legislative time to provide us with a good old fashioned Sunday morning sermon. But when it comes to actually doing his job, instead of voting to help those who Jesus in his own lifetime protected, Mr. Sali does the opposite.

When the evidence is weighed, Bill Sali is not just a failure as a Representative, he is a failure as a Christian. One will get him voted out of office. The other? Well if he knows the Bible as well as he claims, then I think he probably can figure out the answer to that one.

If you find Representative Sali’s voting record, use of his speaking time or both to be repugnant, drop him a line!

Six Degrees Of Separation (From Reality)

2007-10-18T15:40:00.000-04:00

Reality. It's something that the President is so disconnected from that even if a galactic GPS system existed, he still wouldn't find his way back to it. Just when I think there's no way that the bar can be set any higher, he opens his mouth. Yesterday, at a late afternoon press conference, he issued these gems:

Number One

The President: The Democratically controlled Congress has, "little to show for all the time that has gone by. "I think it is their fault that bills aren't moving."

Yes, it's true. Rather than pass legislation that would be easy for him to sign into law such as a 'Defense of Marriage Act', the Democrats insist on forcing him to veto irrelevant measures such as health insurance for children.

Number Two

The President: (On using the veto) "One way to ensure that I am relevant; that's one way to ensure that I am in the process. And I intend to use the veto."

Right. It's not about leading, or moving the business of the country forward, it's about being relevant. Then at the end of his term, it's about cashing in.

Number Three

"I'm looking forward to getting some things done for the American people," Bush said. "And if it doesn't get done, I'm looking forward to reminding people as to why it's not getting done."

Perhaps he'd like to issue commemorative coins with his image. That way each American can keep the reason right in their pocket.

Number Four

On his relationship with Vladimir Putin: "We don't agree on a lot of issues; we do agree on some. Iran is one; nuclear proliferation is another. Reducing our nuclear warheads was an issue that we agreed on early."

Oh, nuclear weapons are bad! Other tidbits that you may not know: The sky is blue. Fire burns. Oh, and chicken pox, it'll make you itch.

Number Five

On a Congressional movement to condemn genocide of the Armenians in World War I: "One thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire"

For God's sake, leave the past alone! Bad Congress, go back to debating important issues like flag burning amendments and writing blank checks for operations in Iraq.

Number Six

On the Dalai Lama: "One, I admire the Dalai Lama a lot; two, I support religious freedom, he supports religious freedom"

In other words, I'm the Dalai Lama. C'mon, you know that's what he's thinking. But while he supports the Dalai Lama and religious freedom, he doesn't want to get too crazy and take a stand on freedom for Tibet and Taiwan, or keep dangerous products coming out of China, or address the myriad of human rights abuses by the Chinese government. Let's be reasonable here.

The presidency of George W. Bush, is a lot like an extreme action movie. In order to swallow it, you just have to suspend your disbelief. Unfortunately, unlike the movie which mercifully ends, the Bush presidency just goes on and on.

Bush Family Values Make Sense. . . In Bizarro World!

2007-09-28T15:19:00.000-04:00

Sometimes I just don't understand what is wrong with George Bush. He certainly claims to be a pro-family, anti-spending, small government conservative, practically the second coming of Ronald Reagan. But while spouting these values, he often does something in diametrical opposition. It's as if he was beamed here from the mythical D.C. Comics alternate Universe, Bizarro World.

Point and case, the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate, across party lines, felt that this is an important enough program, to not only put forth a bill to continue it, but also to expand it. The recipients of this expansion would be the nine million or so children whose families are too poor to afford private health insurance, but who make too much to qualify for Medicare. Sounds reasonable, right? Help families to keep their children healthy. America's future. Who could be against that?

Well . . .

The President's response: "The proposal congressional leaders are pushing would raise taxes on working Americans and would raise spending by $35 to $50 billion. . . Our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage."

Fascinating

What the President doesn't mention is that the "tax increase" comes from cigarettes and is essentially a usage tax. The implication that it raises taxes on "working Americans" is dubious. And since we're looking at costs to "working Americans," he fails to mention that the World Health Organization estimates the annual cost of smoking to the U.S. economy to be $76 billion. I wonder what kind of burden THAT puts on "working Americans"?

Equally mystifying is the fact that the President offers no plan as to how he will move uninsured children to private health coverage. It's nice to have the goal, but how's he going to get it done? In other words, Congress is offering a plan that will cover millions of uninsured children, Mr. Bush is offering a goal of moving them to private insurance at some future date.

Hmmm. . . Which to pick? Which to pick?

The final insult is that while the President talks a good game about finance and taxes talk is all it is. His administration, after all, has presided over the largest deficit in the history of the United States. This by the way came on the heels of inheriting the highest SURPLUS in the history of the U.S. And it's not as though the President has been shy about spending when it suits his needs. His 2008 budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected to be $200 billion! If we can spend $200 billion for the war effort and not even get our money's worth, is $35 billion for the kids so outrageous?

Apparently in the confines of the Bizarro World Bush White House, it is.

Appalling.

Memo To Mattel: Go Play With Yourself

2007-09-24T11:23:00.000-04:00

It seems this past summer that you couldn't open up a newspaper, turn on the TV, or visit an on-line news site without finding a story about the recall of some product made in the "Peoples" Republic of China. So significant is the problem that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, put this notice on their website:

"The increasing number of voluntary recalls of imported consumer products manufactured in China is of serious concern to the Commission. It is essential to the Commission’s success in reducing the risk of injury and death to American consumers that the Chinese government learn the identity of a manufacturer whose product presents a significant risk of injury associated with such product."

A search of the CPSC website reveals that of the 60 products recalled since August 1, a whopping 63% (39) were manufactured in China.

Of these, over 60% are products made for children!

They include:

Simplicity Cribs

Novara Afterburner Trailer Bicycles

IT400 Iced Tea Makers

Cook’s Essentials Convection Ovens with Pull-Out Rotisserie and Deni Convection Ovens with Rotisserie

"Avant Yarde" Decorative Glaze Outdoor Candles

Ohalee FA-A70 Youth ATVs

Big Big World 6-in-1 Bongo Band toys

Geo Trax Locomotive Toys

Barbie Accessory Toys

Imaginarium Wooden Coloring Cases

B&F System Emergency Tool Kits

“Aloha Breeze” Portable Electric Heaters

Zippity Hoodie and Sherpa Full Zip Children’s Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings

Gerber EAB (Exchange-A-Blade) Pocket Knives

Paramount Apparel Toddler and Youth Nylon Bucket Hats

Oregon Scientific Weather Radios

Wal-Mart Ceramic Oil Torch Lamps

Wolverine Logger Boots

Robbie Ducky™ Kids Watering Cans

Priddy "Trucks" Shaker Teether Books

SpongeBob SquarePants™ Address Books and Journals

Thomas and Friends, Curious George and Other Spinning Tops and Tin Pails

Children’s Divine Inspiration Charm Bracelets

TOBY & ME Jewelry Sets

Hampton Direct Magnetic Toy Train Sets

Classic Beauty Rest Electric Warming Throws

Mattel Polly Pocket dolls

Doggie Day Care™ play sets

Barbie and Tanner™ play sets

“Sarge” die cast toy cars

Batman™ and One Piece™ magnetic action figure sets

Formation Inc. Coca-Cola® Themed Drinking Glasses

Toshiba Notebook Computer Batteries

Garden Treasures Cloud 9 Beyond Chairs

Basic Blindz® Window Blinds

Stuffed Plush Horse/Pillows and Fairy Dolls

2007 Raleigh Cadent Bicycles with Carbonage Carbon Forks

Fisher-Price Sesame Street, Dora the Explorer, and other children's toys

The number of poorly made products from China seems to be exploding, which brings me to the point of this particular post:

What in the hell was Thomas A. Debrowski of Mattel thinking when he apologized to Chinese product safety chief Li Changjiang?

Said the Mattel VP: "Our reputation has been damaged lately by these recalls and Mattel takes full responsibility for these recalls and apologizes personally to you, the Chinese people, and all of our customers who received the toys."

Don't get me wrong, an apology on the part of Mattel is certainly appropriate. But not to the Chinese government!

China's inconsistent regulations, poor safety standards and questionable business practises have led to these problems and they bear a large share of the responsibility for fixing them. Apologising to them is a bit like a robbery victim apologising to his mugger. "Oops, sorry that all I had was a pocket full of loose change when you got me. Hope this didn't damage your standing in the robber community."

It's a ridiculous and shameless attempt by Mattel to curry good will from the Chinese government so that they can continue to expolit the CHEAP labour force.

To make it right, Mattel should issue the following statement:

"To the Chinese people, we apologise for infusing capital into a governmental system that denies you the basic liberties that we ourselves enjoy. To the American people we apologize to you for valuing profit more than quality which led us to export many jobs overseas and do business with shoddy manufacturers."

If you agree, take an action and let them know. E-mail Mattel.
If you want to go even further, stop buying products made in China.

Republican Senators Walk Off The Cliff . . . Again.

2007-09-21T12:27:00.000-04:00

Sometimes having a majority means squat and the United States Senate is a perfect example. Three very important issues faced this body, this past week and in spite of strong public support, the Republican minority was able to kill them. In some cases, by only four votes.

The issues were:

• A bill that would have allowed military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.

• An amendment to a defense bill that would have required troops spend as much time at home training with their units as they spend deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

• A bill that would have brought the majority of troops stationed in Iraq home within 9 months.

It seems as if there's a wrong side of an issue to be on, most Republican Senator's will line up to be on it.

Afterall, why should a foriegn detainee have access to the same legal rights that we enjoy? And is Iraq really so terrible that our troops need time away from it? Afterall, it's sunny and hot. How many Americans would love to have fun in the sun during a cold bitter winter?

It's ridiculous, of course.

But once again, instead of doing what's in the best interest of our troops, or upholding a founding principle of our nation, they instead drink the Kool-Aid and line up behind a man who not only doesn't know that Nelson Mandela is alive but thinks that he was somehow associated with Iraq.

The only thing missing from the Republicn schtick is a snappy, "Heil!"

His Coffers Runneth Over!

2007-09-06T12:14:00.000-04:00

George Bush is an amazing human being. Every time I think that he has reached the pinnacle of stupidity, he opens his mouth and behold, there's one more peak for him to ascend!

In interviews granted to GQ reporter, Robert Draper, the President sketched out his plans following his term in office. It has been my long held belief that we will see Mr. Bush on the board of oil corporations, Haliburton, or other defense contractors soon after he departs the White House. Through record gas prices and numerous war related contracts, these institutions have flourished under his presidency. It seems only logical that they would repay the President in kind.

But does Mr. Bush want that kind of retirement?

Afterall, some former Presidents dedicate themselves to public service. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have done notable work in the aftermath of both the Asian Tsunami disaster and Hurricane Katrina. Jimmy Carter has built a legacy of service that eclipses his presidential accomplishments. These include; his work with Habitat For Humanity, human rights advocacy, and that little thing known as the Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Carter provides proof positive that a less than successful president can still be a more than successful human being.

So what grand aspirations does the current President Bush have?

Let's hear from the man himself: "I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch,” he told Mr. Draper. “I'll give some speeches, to replenish the ol' coffers, I don't know what my dad gets - it's more than 50-75 (thousand)”and "Clinton's making a lot of money".

Apparently the $20,000,000 or so that he currently has is not enough.

Mr. Bush’s cronies have gotten exceedingly rich during his term in office. They have done it through plum contracts and through thievery. They have done it through an administration that regularly turns a blind eye to price gouging. They have often done it at the expense of the people whom they were supposed to be serving, especially the very troops that our President so professes to care about.

So if it's riches that the President wants, there is no doubt in my mind that he shall have them in plenty. His buddies will have his back and his coffers will not only be refilled, they will overflow with riches. Yes, George Bush’s wish will come true. And it’s nice when that happens, because it’s inspiring. In fact, the next time that I see a shooting star or blow out the candles on my birthday cake, I’m going to close my eyes tight and wish for the following:

That Lady Justice refills the coffers of Mr. Bush's ass, fully, with her foot.

Larry Craig Gay? Fine By Me!

2007-08-29T13:28:00.000-04:00

CNN reports today that Idaho Senator Larry Craig is rapidly losing support in his home state. The Conservative Senator is under fire from both the left and the right for allegedly engaging in lewd conduct in a Minneapolis Airport restroom. The Senator, who pleaded guilty to a charge of Disorderly Conduct, is vehemently denying that he is gay, though rumours have persisted for many years.

There are many things about this case which are strange, not least among them this: If the Senator was doing nothing wrong, why did he plead guilty? He claims that "In pleading guilty, I overreacted in Minneapolis because of the stress of the Idaho Statesman's investigation and the rumors it has fueled around Idaho." Apparently the Senator thought the best way to quell said rumours was by admitting guilt to a charge that would lead people to draw exactly that conclusion.

Not exactly the brightest strategy.

But beyond that, who cares? While this story is certainly made of the stuff that sells advertising, whether or not Senator Craig is (hushed whisper) G-A-Y, really isn't the point. What should be the point, is the following:

• If in fact Senator Craig is guilty of no wrong doing, why did he plead guilty?

• If he "overreacted" due to stress caused by rumours, is he in a mental state that leaves him fit to serve?

• Regardless of his sexual orientation, Senator Craig has; 1) been a strong opponent of expanding the federal hate crimes law to cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias, 2) voted against outlawing employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 3) strongly supported a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Not exactly a record to be proud of.

It boils down to this: If Senator Craig chooses to resign or decides not to seek re-election, it should not be because of his sexual orientation.

Rather, if he is gay, then he is in conflict with his inner self and should take some time to resolve it. If he is not gay, then his behaviour is at best bizzare and calls into question his competency to make the types of judgements that a United States is required to make.

It's probably time for him to go, but let's make sure it's for the right reasons.

Rove And Gonzales: Resignation Should Not Equal Off The Hook

2007-08-27T11:12:00.000-04:00

The world seemed just a little bit brighter this morning as the radio brought forth the news about the resignation of Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. It comes on the heels of Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's recent announcement of his intention to step down at the end of September. Both leave under heavy clouds of suspicion regarding their involvement in activities of questionable legality. Their collective works allegedly include;

• Releasing the identity of a covert CIA operative to the media.
• Crafting guidelines for interrogating techniques that are widely considered to be torture.
• Failing to abide by or enforce Federal guidelines for preserving communications records.
• Bypassing existing laws regarding warrantless surveillance.
• Participating in the dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.
• Suppressing the right of accused terror suspects to legal counsel and a jury trial.

It is a long and shameful record and our country is better off without their continued service.

Both men have garnered increasing attention from Congress and it would be easy for them to now turn their collective attention elsewhere. To do so, however, would be tantamount to stopping treatment for a disease once the obvious symptoms have gone.

It's sometimes the hidden things that will kill you!

Given the close personal relationship that both Mr. Rove and Mr. Gonzales enjoy with the President, it is likely that they will remain influential. By being out of the Washington limelight, they'll be better able to exert it away from the increasingly watchful gaze of the Democratic controlled Congress. It's critical now, more than ever, that investigations continue.

Some say that the country doesn't need partisan investigations, that to do so amounts to political payback. I disagree. Free roaming inquiries into alleged shady land deals that then morph into allegations of sexual harassment are partisan. Focused investigations into allegations of the suppression of constitutional rights, treason, or violations of the Geneva Conventions are not. They are due diligence, and due diligence lies at the very heart of our system of checks and balances.

Under the 109th Congress, the Executive Branch ran amok. If the 110th does not fully assert it's Constitutional authority and reign the administration back in, then it's members have abandoned their oaths of office.

In order to ensure that this doesn't happen, we need to do our due diligence and let them know that we expect our rights to be protected. Congressional vacations end on September 4. Give them a call: 202-224-3121.

Look, Up In The Sky! It's A Bird . . . It's A Plane . . . It's Your Government Spying On You!

2007-08-16T15:49:00.000-04:00

In what may be the most egregious affront to privacy rights in at least the last week, both the Washington Post and Fox News are reporting that the Bush Administration has approved plans to allow domestic agencies access to data from U.S. spy satellites. Approved by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, state and local law enforcement officials will soon be able to utilise imagery from systems that have largely been restricted to foreign surveillance and occasional scientific study. The systems are believed to be sophisticated enough to penetrate clouds, buildings and even underground bunkers.

Now here's the REALLY interesting Part . . .

Oversight of the imagery data will come from officials in the Department of Homeland Security and from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That's right, no court obtained warrants and no approval from Congress. But don't let that worry you. According to Charles Allen, the chief intelligence officer for the Department of Homeland Security, "We can give total assurance" that Americans’ civil liberties will be protected. "Americans shouldn't have any concerns about it."

Well the executive branch of government has never lied to us. Wait, reverse that.

It is clear to me that Congress's latest passivity with regard to renewing the warrantless wiretapping has emboldened the Bush Administration. In no part of the United States is it legal for the police to just knock down your door and search your premises. Yet this technology provides law enforcement the ability to do just that. But it's not our local law enforcement departments you should be concerned about. Most are comprised of men and women of good faith. The problem goes a little higher. Consider this: In 1972 members of the Nixon Administration had the audacity to orchestrate a burglary of Democratic Party Headquarters. Had they access to this type of technology might they have gotten away with it?

Make no mistake about it: This is the type of activity that was condoned and utilised by the German Nazi government, by the Soviet Union, and by Communist China. It is antithetical to every principle upon which the United States of America was founded.

The idea that honest people have nothing to worry about is no longer, if it ever was, a valid response to this latest action. The administration has broken faith with the people whose rights it pledged to uphold and protect. If you have sat silently while civil liberty after civil liberty has been peeled away in the name of security, you can afford to sit no longer. You can afford to be silent no longer either. Our nation is in peril and the danger is coming as much from within as from without. You must act. You must raise your voice in protest, write letters to your paper and put placards in your yard. You must call your Congressional Representative and demand action. You must call the White House and voice your opposition.
These are the imperative actions that each of us must take.

And if that doesn't get their attention then WE must march on Washington until the only sound that can be heard is that of our voices raised in protest and in defense of our most cherished freedoms.

$20 Billion Worth Of Stupid From The Bush Administration

2007-07-30T22:10:00.000-04:00

Just when you think the bar can't be set any higher for foreign policy incompetence, the Bush administration manages to pull a miracle out of it's bag of tricks.

In a four day tour of the Middle East, perhaps the most volatile region on the planet, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced $20 billion dollar military aid package for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Said Rice, "We are helping to strengthen the defensive capabilities of our partners and we plan to initiate discussions with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states on a proposed package of military technologies that will help support their ability to secure peace and stability in the Gulf region." The theory is that by arming countries that are more closely aligned with the U.S., Iran will be kept in check.

The problem is that it fails to take into account that Iran isn't the only country in the region not exactly lining up to wave the stars and stripes and sing a hearty chorus of "God Bless America."

The number of reasons not to weaponize the region are staggering. For example:

• Many of the countries set to receive aid stand in opposition to long term U.S. ally, Israel.

• Islam is a major influence in the region, and past language by the President, such as "crusade," has stirred distrust in the Muslim community.

• The failure of the U.S. to stabilize Iraq has angered many in the Muslim community.

• Many of the countries have porous borders and men who are eager to fight in Iraq.

• Many of the countries have abominable human rights records.

So in summary, the President would like to spread weapons throughout a region: where a good deal of the populace bears animosity towards the United States; where many of the governments would be happy to see Israel gone; and where human rights are not exactly a high value.

While he's at it, perhaps he'd like to stand on the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and distribute lit fireworks to small children.

There's just one word for this proposal: Stupid.

Congress can stop it and you can tell them that you want them to do so.

Republican Senators Give The Meat Grinder Another Turn

2007-07-18T14:33:00.000-04:00

Republican Senators were successful this morning in blocking a vote on the Levin-Reed bill. Proposed by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jack Reed, D-R.I, the measure aimed to set a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. It's another failure for a legislative body that seems more content to be a lapdog of the Bush Administration than one half of a strong and co-equal branch of government.

Shame on them!

This latest disgrace seems to defy both reason or logic. Here's why:

• Sectarian violence continues in Iraq and despite a troop surge, U.S. casualties show no sign of slowing down. Here are the figures for the last four months: June - 108, May - 130, April - 115, March - 81

• On July 14, Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, stated, "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at anytime they want."

• In Afghanistan, Al-Quaida is operating along the Pakistani border and until recently, it appears with the cooperation of the Pakistani government. U.S. intelligence indicates that they are in Waziristan, just over the border, and that Osama bin Laden is believed to be in the area.

• The most recent National Intelligence Estimate reported that, "(al Qaeda) is beefing up efforts to sneak operatives into the United States . . . we judge that al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here . . . we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment."

In summary:

Our troops are getting slaughtered by rocket propelled grenades and roadside bombs at the rate of approximately 100 a month, the Iraqi prime minister says that he can function without us, and Al Qaeda's is flourishing along the Pakistani border.

So here's my question:

Why in the hell are we continuing to waste resources in Iraq?

Bad Presidents Need To Be Spanked And Inherent Contempt Is The Paddle!

2007-07-13T12:04:00.000-04:00

It was 3:00 p.m. in Washington and the House Judiciary Committee was preparing to investigate the circumstances around the firing of seven U.S. Attorneys. There was just one small problem: The witness chair was empty. The failure of White House counsel Harriet Miers to answer a subpoena by the House Judiciary Committee has put the Executive and Legislative branches on a Constitutional collision course and it's about damn time!

The President, as he seems to do with every inquiry into how decisions are made at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, exerted Executive privilege in defiance of the subpoena. Mr. Bush has stated that he is unwilling to let any current or former advisors appear before Congress while under oath. His compromise is to let Ms. Miers and other officials talk with Congress in private and off the record.

In other words, they could say whatever they want and since they would not be under oath, there could be no consequences if they lied.

This is where things get interesting. The Committee voted to reject the President's claim of Executive Privilege, which paves the way for Ms. Miers to receive a Contempt of Congress citation. It's an appropriate action, but what many people don't realise is that there are several different types of contempt and some have more teeth than others. All start with a referral, which, then leads to a vote of the appropriate body (House or Senate). A simple majority makes the charge stick. From here, however, things move in very different directions.
Here's a quick primer:

• Civil Procedure: In this version, the Senate/House files an action in Federal District Court. The Court can then direct the person being cited to comply with the Senate/Houses' action. If the person fails to do so, they are in Contempt of Court.

• Statutory Contempt of Congress: Here, the Senate/House finds the person in contempt and then refers it to the U.S. Attorney, i.e. the Justice Department. However, the Justice Department can decide not to act on it as was the case in the Reagan Administration when EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch was held in Statutory Contempt.

• Inherent Contempt of Congress: This is the winner. It's the one with the most juice and the one that Congress hasn't used since 1935. Upon issuing a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to that chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the body may dictate, including immediate imprisonment.

It's clear that Congress is about to act against Harriet Miers. The question is, do they have the will to hit the Administration and hit it hard? We've all witnessed the obnoxious kid whose parents give him/her a 'good talking to' when we know that what they really need is a 'good ass cracking.' That's what we have here except that Congress is the indulgent parent and the President is the spoiled brat.

The job of the Legislative Branch is to provide oversight and it's time for them to spank the President.

I can think of no better way to administer it than to cite Harriet Miers with inherent contempt, arrest her, bring her before the House, put her on trial and, if she fails to comply, jail her. The President has shown that every 'good talking to’ in the world is not going to get his attention, his respect or the truth. It's time for stronger measures.

Call your representative today (202-224-3121) and tell them that you want Harriet Miers to be held in inherent contempt of Congress!

Chertoff's Gut Feeling Makes Me Queasy

2007-07-11T21:51:00.000-04:00

Almost six years after the September 11 attacks, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff stated that he had a "gut feeling" that the United States is facing a heightened risk of attack this summer. Although Mr. Chertoff offered no concrete evidence, the Associated Press is reporting that U.S. Intelligence Analysts have concluded that Al-Qaida may be at its strongest level since just before the attacks.

But is it true?

The timing is curious. As pressure mounts on the Bush Administration to end military operations in Iraq, Mr. Chertoff's nebulous comments seem to be right out of the President's playbook. Create doubt and fear in the populace. Afterall, if Al-Quaida is getting stronger, leaving Iraq is tantamount to handing the country over to them. Or so they would like us to believe.

What if it is true?

The problem is that the Bush Administration has beaten the Al-Quaida drum so often that it has become the political equivalent of crying wolf. If the terrorism threat has increased, the credibility of the Bush Administration may be so threadbare that no one is listening. Interestingly enough, the intelligence seems to indicate that Al-Quaida has regrouped strongest along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Gee, I wonder how that happened . . .

Following 9/11, military action in Afghanistan made sense and was effective. Evidence that Al-Quaida was operating within Afghani borders was irrefutible and the Taliban government was clearly aware of it. But instead of a swift and decisive victory against terrorism and religious based totalitarianism, we sit mired in a war launched on faulty or false intelligence; approaching 4,000 dead American soldiers; as Iraq teeters on the precipice of civil war; and the Taliban and Al-Quaida rebound and approach pre-9/11 strength in Afghanistan.

It is disgraceful, it is criminal and if God forbid Mr. Chertoff's "gut feeling" turns out to be right, the blame and the blood falls squarely on George W. Bush.

Gonzalez: Lazy, A Liar, Or Terminally Forgetful?

2007-07-10T13:05:00.000-04:00

Perhaps it's all three.

The Washington Post is reporting today that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez may have been lying to Congress when he reported to the Senate on April 27, 2005 that, "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse." Mr. Gonzales was seeking renewal of the Patriot Act and was reassuring the Senate that the FBI was working within the confines of the law. The controversial act was ultimately renewed.

There's just one small problem: The Attorney General wasn't telling the truth.

Whether it was intentional or not is a matter of debate. Internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that Mr. Gonzalez received as many as six reports documenting legal and procedural violations by the Bureau, prior to testifying. These included; unauthorized surveillance, an illegal property search and a obtaining data from an Internet firm that it was not entitled to collect. Each report stated that administrative rules or laws protecting civil liberties and privacy were violated. Justice Department spokesperson, Brian Roehrkasse maintains that, "the violations the FBI disclosed were not legal violations and instead involved procedural safeguards or even typographical errors."

Oh! It's o.k. to violate someone's civil rights so long as it's only a procedural matter or a typo. Good to know!

The question is this: Did the Attorney General lie to Congress, not bother to read the reports, or as in the case of the dismissed U.S. Attorneys, is he merely forgetful? It doesn't really matter. Whether intentional or not, Mr. Gonzalez has consistently shown a disregard for the law and an inability to recall important pieces of information directly tied to the running of his department.

It boils down to this: If he lacks the mental accuity to remember key details of Justice Department business, then he is unfit to serve. If he does not bother to read reports acknowledging violations of the very law that his department is charged with upholding, then he is unfit to serve. If he went before Congress and intentionally lied, then he is unfit to serve.

No matter what excuse the AG or his representatives present, the conclusion is the same. Mr. Gonzales is unfit to serve as Attorney General of the United States of America.

It's time for Congress to do something about it.

Go To Jail, Go Directly To Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200 . . .

2007-07-03T16:20:00.000-04:00

Psych!

As the Valerie Plame incident began to wind its way into the mainstream media, President Bush was quoted as saying, "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

I had long thought the President a liar on this point. Little did I know that he was telling the truth. Literally.

While most of us assumed that he was speaking about prosecution or ejection from the cozy confines of his administration, apparently in Bush-ese "taken care of," means well protected and cared for. So, instead of a 30 month sentence, Mr. Libby is instead relieved of the nasty burden of incarceration. How nice for him. There was a time when treason and crimes related to treason received sentences of death or, years, if not decades in prison. But in Mr. Bush's estimation, "the 30-month sentencing was severe." And he has not ruled out the future possibility of a pardon.

I guess they just don’t do treason like they used to!

The move is certainly a crafty one. With Libby still convicted and actively appealing it, the chance that he'll talk about his case is slim. If subpoenaed, he'll likely invoke his 5th Amendment rights. A silent Scooter means greater protection for the Bush inner circle particularly, for Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove. Though within his right as President to commute Mr. Libby's sentence, or to outright pardon him, the President's action raises the question of whether he's engaged in a cover up.

For those of us who have long opposed, and long commented on, the conduct of the Bush Administration, this is just one more drop in a very deep bucket of lawlessness. We shouldn’t really be surprised. The President has consistently shown the same level of respect for the Constitution as he might for a role of toilet paper. The true surprise would be if Congress finally showed the courage and fortitude to hold him accountable. It’s a long shot, but we can hope.

If you’re like me though, you know that political change is a lot like birth control: Hope is not a method.

So perhaps tomorrow in between the cookout and the fireworks, you'd like to celebrate Independence Day with me by calling Congress and demanding action.

202-224-3121

Operators are standing by . . .

Dick Cheney: The Fourth Branch Of Government?

2007-06-26T20:44:00.000-04:00

Perhaps someone should check the water at the Naval Observatory, the residence of the Vice President of the United States. With a paranoia that might only be rivaled by the unwitting participants of the CIA's 1950s LSD experiments, the Vice President seems intent on hiding all traces of his activities. The point in question is whether he can legally do so.

It came to light in a letter from Representative Henry Waxman, Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, that Mr. Cheney considers himself exempt from 1995 federal legislation that requires members of the executive branch to work with the National Archives to preserve classified documents. This law, by the way, was supported in an executive order issued by President Bush four years ago. The purpose of said law is to ensure that classified documents are preserved and that the information in them is kept safe. Although, the Vice President did comply during the first two years of the Bush administration, after that, he consistently failed to do so. When called to account for it, Mr. Cheney posited that his office "is not an entity within the executive branch," and went so far as to claim that he is a member of the legislative branch.

Um, excuse me?

Apparently the Vice President is not familiar with a little document known as the Constitution of the United States of America. Given his past and presumably current support for torture, detention without charge, and secretive overseas prisons, this should hardly come as a surprise. Nor should it be surprising that Mr. Cheney has failed to adequately protect classified materials. After all, his own Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby was convicted of numerous felonies around the leak of a classified CIA agent's identity.

The obsession with secrecy is pathological. In 2001 he chaired a task force on a national energy policy and fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep confidential the identities of energy industry officials who advised it.

Why?

It's a difficult question to answer, but this much is true: Whether it's psychotropic drugs, a personality disorder, or my personal favourite, demonic possession, Mr. Cheney's behaviour puts the country at risk AND calls into question whether it's secrets he's hiding or illegal acts.

It is imperative to our national security that Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, step up and investigate. They have given the President and Vice President a pass for too long and it's damn well time for it to change.

The 21st Century Equivalent Of Erasing The Tapes?

2007-06-21T13:09:00.000-04:00

A good outcome from the demise of the Nixon administration was the Presidential Records Act, a law designed to preserve and make public the communications of a President and (to this date)his staff. The law clearly specifies what must be preserved, how it must be preserved and when and how the records are to be released to the public.

Reminiscent of the erased Watergate tapes, key members of the Bush administration appear to have attempted to skirt this law by establishing e-mail accounts through the Republican National Committee and then conveniently deleting them.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported on Monday that 88 administration staff members established e-mail accounts through the RNC, which the White House claims was to keep political and governmental work separate. They found, however, that not only did the account holders use their RNC accounts to discuss government business, but that 51 of the 88 individuals had missing records!
Chief among them was Presidential Advisor, Karl Rove.

Is there something rotten along the banks of the Potomac.

While the report does not assign intent to the missing e-mails, and the administration is claiming that no laws have been broken, several things stand out that seem to indicate it has:

* The committee found that then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales ordered presidential staff to preserve official e-mails from outside accounts.

* Presidential staff failed to do so.

* Alberto Gonzales and President Bush failed to enforce the policy.

Also of note, is that RNC e-mail records from these accounts have turned up in both the Jack Abramoff case, as well as in the investigations into the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys.

Have members of the President's staff broken the law and violated the public trust?
It certainly appears so and they should be called to answer for it.

Write your Congressional Representative and ask for a full investigation.

A Pretty Good Day For Civil Rights

2007-05-31T13:04:00.000-04:00

Amidst our daily dose of atrocities from Iraq and the double-barrel domestic gut shot of an increase in violent crime and a significant economic downturn, comes a ray of hope from some unexpected sources: Alabama and New Hampshire.

In very different ways, both states took a stand for civil rights and the equality of all citizens. One by looking backward, the other by looking forward.

Down south, Alabama's Republican Governor, Bob Riley signed a resolution that expressed "profound regret" for Alabama's role in slavery. The resolution apologized for slavery's wrongs as well as for the lingering effects that it continues to have on our culture. Said the Governor, "Slavery was evil and is a part of American history. I believe all Alabamians are proud of the tremendous progress we have made and continue to make." Alabama joins Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina as the only former Confederate states to make such an apology.

Meanwhile, up north, New Hampshire's Democratic Governor, John Lynch, signed into law a bill that legalises same sex civil unions. Said Lynch, "We in New Hampshire have had a long and proud tradition taking the lead and opposing discrimination. Today that tradition continues." The new law grants homosexual couples the same rights as married couples and will also honours same sex unions from other states that recognize them.

It would be easy to criticise Alabama for taking too long and New Hampshire for not going far enough. But the truth is, both are in the lead for trying to right the respective wrongs.

It's easy to take potshots at the south over the issue of slavery and some of it is deserved. But those who know their history know that there were many northerners who sympathised with slave owners, just as there were southern abolitionists. Alabama is to be commended for this historic step. Hopefully it will pave the way for apologies from other southern states, as well as from northern states many of which have legalised slavery in their history and citizens who helped facilitated the slave trade.

Of equal import is the need for the U.S. federal government to apologize for Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, a section that essentially sanctioned slavery. It was here that the formula for determining congressional representation and tax burden was decided by, "adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Yes, non-whites were considered 3/5 of a white person. An apology is both justified and necessary.

The issue of gay marriage and legal rights for homosexuals is the American civil rights issue of the 21st century. To date Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California and Washington recognise same sex civil unions. Oregon will join that list next year. Hawaii extends some spousal rights to same-sex couples and cohabiting heterosexual pairs, but only Massachusetts recognises gay marriage. Of the ten states that have recognised some form of same sex union, thus far, only New Hampshire has done so without any legal action pending.

The Civil War ended one hundred and forty seven years ago and the wounds of slavery are still evident. Let's hope that in another hundred and forty seven years they will have finally healed over. Let us also hope that in one hundred and forty years the idea of gay civil rights is so ingrained in our national psyche that those looking back will wonder why we ever needed to debate it.

For Whom Freedom Rings

2007-05-29T13:10:00.000-04:00

Yesterday was Memorial Day in the United States of America. What once for many was a day of parades and picnics and three day weekends, is increasingly a grim reminder of a generation killed and maimed by the brutality of war. Rather than seeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, the number of deaths are on the increase, 115 this month at last count. It is the highest number of casualties since April of 2004.

So much for progress . . .

Meanwhile, the perpetually optimistic and perhaps delusional, Mr. Bush continues to bang the drums of war declaring, "On Memorial Day, we rededicate ourselves to freedom's cause."

But where he pursues freedom is pretty selective.

• Roughly 1/6 of the earth's population lives in China, which at last check had a decidedly communist government. In addition to a litany of human rights abuses, the Chinese government has engaged in unfair trade practices that send a large amount of U.S. capital overseas in return for a glut of cheap products. Products, I might add, that once were made in the U.S.

• Tibet, an autonomous nation since the 600's AD, was invaded by China in 1950. The Tibetan people still seek their freedom.

• The people of Burma live under the auspices of a military junta, who in 1990 failed to honour the results of a democratically held election.

• Saudi Arabia is listed in the CIA World Factbook as a country of concern for trafficking in persons (i.e. slavery). Additionally, there is strict repression of the press, no right to public assembly or to form a political party and the rights of women are severely restricted.

• Pakistan, our ally in the "war on terror" has a President, Pervez Musharraf, who earned his office by deposing the democratically elected Nawaz Sharif.

• Meanwhile, elsewhere in the middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian issue has made little progress since Mr. Bush took office. Once a strong partner for peace in this region, the U.S. in recent years has been remarkably silent.

It's easy to talk the talk and to wave the flag. It's another to live up to the words.

Mr. Bush speaks a lot about freedom and the role of the U.S. in perpetuating it around the world. But the record seems to indicate that his interest in it extends only so far as his personal interests. So as you mark the passing of another Memorial Day and remember those who have literally sacrificed life and limb, you might want to ask yourself this question: "For whom and what did they make this sacrifice?"

"I Hope You Had The Time Of Your Life"

2007-05-15T15:44:00.000-04:00

People sometimes write this quote on sympathy cards thinking that it is the title of a 1997 song by Green Day. What most don't realize, however, is that the actual name of the song is "Good Riddance."

The Reverend Jerry Falwell passed away today. How you feel about it probably depends on what you think of the man and his impact on American culture.

While I would not be so cavalier as to dismiss anyone's death with a good riddance, I do believe that it is appropriate to look at what he stood for. Sadly, for a man who claimed to follow the teachings of Jesus, his life was frankly a pale emulation. Here are but a few examples:

• On September 15, 2001, he had this to say about the 9/11 terrorist attacks:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen."

• In an October 2002 interview on 60 minutes and he said about Islam:

"I think Muhammad was a terrorist."

• In January of 1999, he characterized his views on the Anti-Christ:

"Is he alive and here today? Probably. Because when he appears during the Tribulation period he will be a full-grown counterfeit of Christ. Of course he'll be Jewish. Of course he'll pretend to be Christ. And if in fact the Lord is coming soon, and he'll be an adult at the presentation of himself, he must be alive somewhere today."

• On July 5, 1983 he said:

"Herpes, AIDS, venereal diseases ... are a definite form of the judgment of God upon a society."

And in 1987 followed it up with:

"AIDS could be God's judgment against a nation that choses to live immorally."

There is very little on which Dr. Falwell and I agreed.

He represented a religion tradition founded on the philosophy of peace, social justice and love, yet so often preached ideals that were in direct contrast. But there is one thing that he was right about . . .

Upon leaving the Moral Majority he commented:

"I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved."

Had the religious right not mobilized as a political force we might well have a cure for AIDS, peace in Iraq, energy independence and civil rights for all people. It was Falwellian Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott and George W. Bush who most benefited from the rise of the religious right. They were also the Republicans who most stridently stood in opposition to these issues.

In the end analysis, I hope that Jerry Falwell had the time of his life, because it's going to take the rest of mine for us to undo the mess that he helped sow.

The Big Bad Wolfowitz And The Greedy Little Pigs

2007-05-08T12:28:00.000-04:00

Maybe it's time for the Republicans to retire the elephant as their mascot and adopt a more fitting symbol: The Pig.

The Associated Press is reporting that a special investigative panel has determined that World Bank President, Paul Wolfowitz, broke bank rules by arranging a pay package and promotion for his girlfriend. Wolfowitz was selected to run the bank by President Bush and approved by the board in June 2005.

This is not the first the high profile job that Mr. Wolfowitz has held. Prior to his position at the World Bank, he was second in command at the Pentagon, and a key architect of the war in Iraq. He is the person who once told a Congressional panel that, "The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years."

Or Not So Much . . .

The Wolfowitz situation further reinforces the notion that associates of the President are often corrupt, incompetent, or both.

Let's take a moment and review the honour roll:

Paul Wolfowitz allegedly broke World Bank ethics rules by arranging a favourable pay package and promotion for his girlfriend.

Vice President Richard Cheney was found by the Congressional Research Service to have retained ties to Halliburton where he was once, CEO, after assuming the Office of the Vice President. Halliburton since has been awarded many favourable contracts in Iraq and have admitted to overbilling the government.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was indicted on two counts of alleged money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Former Representative Duke Cunningham resigned from the House after pleading guilty to accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes and underreporting his income for 2004.

Former Chief of Staff to the Vice President, Lewis Libby was convicted for obstruction of justice, perjury, and for lying under oath in the Valerie Plame affair.

Former FEMA Director Michael Brown sat with his proverbial thumb up his proverbial, um, well never mind, while New Orleans drowned.

Once again, instead of taking a stand for ethics, Mr. Bush chooses to stick up for corruption. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said, "The president continues to strongly support Paul Wolfowitz and believes he should continue to lead the World Bank."

In other words: 'You're doing a heck of a job there, Wolfie.'

If you're disgusted by another round of Republican ethics violation, there's something that you can do about it. Speak out.

E-mail your Senator or Representative and ask them to call for Mr. Wolfowitz's resignation.

E-mail President Bush and demand that he do the same.

From Mission Accomplished To Mission Impossible

2007-05-01T14:42:00.000-04:00

"My fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

President George W. Bush
May 1, 2003

It was aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln with a sign behind him that read, "Mission Accomplished," that Mr. Bush uttered these famous words four years ago. True, Baghdad had been taken, the Iraqi army was in shambles, and Saddam Hussein was in hiding. True, also as he said, that the transition from "dictatorship to democracy" would "take time." He cited the success in Afghanistan where, "we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained." Nineteen months after the 9/11 attacks, it seemed he had reason to be optimistic.

A lot can change in four years.

There are damn few in the United States or the world who look at the situation in Iraq and see success.

Since Mission Accomplished, 3,213 American soldiers have lost their lives, with April 2007 having the highest casualty rate in four years.

Violence between Sunnis and Shiites occurs on an almost daily basis.

The opening of the Iraqi oil pipeline that was expected to lower energy prices, failed to do so. Instead gas and oil prices in the United States are at an all time high, as oil company profits soar!

The State Department reports that terrorist attacks on non-combatants have doubled in the last year. Iraq and Afghanistan account for nearly a third of these (29%)!

In February, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Peter Pace, reported that US military readiness from a year ago has worsened. Last year it was rated at moderate. This means that US ability to respond to an additional threat, say, Iran or North Korea is severely compromised.

The pace of rebuilding in Iraq is so bad that Inspector General Stuart Bowen Jr. issued a report detailing the many ways that the Bush administration failed to understand what would be required for post-Saddam Iraq to succeed and failed at every juncture to adjust course when given the opportunity to do so.

In short . . .

Iraq from the beginning has been a myopic adventure with far reaching and disastrous consequences. Enough is enough.

It's time to hold the President and his administration fully accountable.

Conservative Radio Host Lars Larson Questions Courage Of Virginia Tech Students

2007-04-25T10:20:00.000-04:00

In an age where one can expect to hear just about anything on the airwaves, occasionally, I still am surprised. Last night was one of those times.

I listened to the Lars Larson radio program last evening which turned to the topic of the shootings at Virginia Tech. I expected the conversation to morph into how "liberals are going to try to take away our 2nd Amendment rights," but never in a million years did I imagine that, instead, Mr. Larson would begin to criticism the victims.

It was one of those moments when I wished there was TIVO for radio.

In responding to an e-mail from one of his listeners, Mr. Larson started to question why the students didn't rush Cho in an attempt to subdue him. He disparaged students, including young athletes, who escaped through the window while their elderly professor held back the door. His implication was that lives would have been saved if students had simply, manned up.

While it is possible that rushing the shooter might have worked, the truth is, none of us can know it for sure. Larson's meaning was clear: the students were cowardly for not trying.

My reaction in that moment is frankly, not suitable for print.

After a tragedy has occured a period of examination is often necessary both in order to heal and to learn. There are many aspects of the Virginia Tech that should be examined such as; how someone who was deemed by the courts as a danger to himself and others was legally able to purchase firearms; how campuses can better protect their communities during times of crisis; how campuses can notify their communities about dangers in a timely manner. But the one thing that I am quite certain does not require examination is the courage of the victims. To do so is unproductive, mean-spirited, insensitive and frankly, shameful.

It's easy for Lars Larson to be a Monday morning quarterback while safely tucked away behind his microphone.

But not Lars, you, me, or anyone else knows what they would do in such a situation, unless they were actually faced with that situation.

Lars owes the Virginia Tech community and their families a big apology.

I've already told him and I hope that you will too! Tell Lars.

Imus, Offense and The All Mighty Dollar

2007-04-17T21:50:00.000-04:00

I've listened to Don Imus many times over the years and the truth be told have often enjoyed his program. It felt more adult than Howard Stern, and there was a brutal honesty to it that I found refreshing in the all too frequently prepackaged world of media. But, there was also an undercurrent that often left me feeling uneasy: A certain meanness to it. When Imus opened his mouth and made the now famous (and incredibly stupid, racist and misogynist) remarks at the expense of the Rutgers women's basketball team, I was not surprised.

Like so many before him, his mouth cost him his job.

I don't know if Don Imus is a racist. My gut tells me no, at least not in the way that most of us think of someone being a racist. More likely, Imus is a reflection of the majority of the population. We are by nature a species that figures out our world by making discreet judgements through our perceived experiences. We are also a social species that shares our perceptions with one another. And these days it's to a voyeuristic extreme.

The problem is that sometimes we get it wrong.

The consequences too often are hurtful stereotypes. Sometimes they come out through humour and I have heard far too many educated people, including people whom I greatly admire, make a joke at the expense of a group that was different from their own. In my heart of hearts, I believe that this is what Don Imus was doing. It's easy when you don't belong to a group not to understand how the words and all their underlying history hurt.

Sadly, this incident is endemic of a larger problem.

While I am a staunch supporter of freedom of speech and first amendment rights, I think we have to acknowledge that the expression of these rights have outcomes that do not always serve our societal interests well. The most far reaching perhaps, seems to be a radical shift in what is defined as normal. What twenty years ago would have been considered outrageous and unacceptable, by today's standards is often pedestrian.

The result that I have most noticed is a breakdown of civility and basic manners.

If you don't believe me, think about how many times you've watched someone change lanes without signaling, had them complain when you didn't respond to their e-mail within a couple of hours, or worse yet, overheard the most private of cell phone conversations in of all places, the bathroom.

When we're willing to discuss anything, anywhere, are Imus' comments really so surprising?

The question is what are we going to do about it? Are we ready and willing to shed some of the avarice's of our no holds barred society? Are we willing to turn off the e-mail? How about the cell phone? Or reality TV? Do we dare go gently into that goodnight?

The answer as CBS and NBC so showed us is, yes. But only if the advertisers pull out.

Until then, expect very little to really change.

Is Scooter Libby The Proverbial Iceberg Tip?

2007-03-08T12:41:00.000-05:00

The recent conviction of former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on four felony charges was certainly a step in the right direction, regarding the Valerie Plame affair. Libby was convicted for obstruction of justice, perjury, and for lying under oath. While all are serious crimes, they fail to address the central issue at hand:

Was the revelation of Valerie Plame to the media as a CIA operative politically motivated?

Special Prosecutor, Larry Fitzgerald says that his investigation is complete and that he has no plans to file any other charges against any other administration official. By all accounts, Mr. Fitzgerald did a first rate job with the investigation and subsequent prosecution. But can Scooter Libby really be the only member of the Bush Administration who violated the law?

Probably not and here's why.

Fact: The United States has a federal law known as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. This Act signed into law by then President Ronald Reagan, makes it federal crime to reveal the identity of a covert agent.
Fact: Columnist Robert Novak, revealed Ms. Plame's identity in his column of July 14, 2003.
Fact: Mr. Novak has public ally said that his sources were Senior Administration officials.
Fact: Grand Jury testimony revealed that Karl Rove was a source for both Novak and for Time Magazine reporter, Matt Cooper.

So why no indictment for Rove?

The answer seems to lie in whether Rove knew that Valerie Plame was an operative or if his mention of her in the context of the story was politically motivated in order to help discredit her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson.

I would like to believe that the Libby conviction resulted from a man who panicked and lied. I'd like to believe that Karl Rove's mention of Valerie Plame (though not directly by name) was simply a small detail in a story and that his intent was not nefarious. Perhaps all of this is true. Unfortunately, the administration has such a long history of misrepresenting the truth, that this story is akin to the "boy who cried wolf." It may be true, but nobody believes it is.

True or not, many important and unanswered questions are linked to this event. Did the administration plot to out a CIA operative in order to discredit her husband? Did they knowingly disregard verifiable intelligence in order to launch a war? Given the seriousness of these issues, it is imperative that the investigations not end with the conviction of Scooter Libby.

It is crucial that Congress initiate hearings to determine if Libby is simply a small ice cube floating in the water, or the tip of a much larger iceberg.

Do As George Says, Not As He Does

2007-03-05T13:27:00.000-05:00

This seems to be the reigning philosophy of the Bush administration, which on Thursday, selected a design for a new generation of atomic warheads. This would be the first major step toward building a new nuclear weapon since the end of the cold war.

Letting a man who can't pronounce nuclear choose the design for the next nuclear weapon, is a little like letting a colourblind person choose the swatches for the drapes. Chances are the results aren't going to be pretty!

Both the energy and defense departments say that the new warheads will not add to the existing stockpile, but rather make it safer and eliminate the need for underground testing. If true, these are admirable goals, though one wonders why underground testing is still even necessary.

Are the capabilities of nuclear weapons still that big a mystery?

More than anything though, this announcement comes at a curious time. The Bush administration is currently negotiating with North Korea to scrap their nuclear ambitions, while engaging in sabre rattling with Iran over theirs. Whether this upgrade represents an increase to the nuclear arsenal or not, the timing calls U.S. credibility into question.

It's hard to fathom how Mr. Bush expects other countries to halt their nuclear ambitions when we appear to be expanding our own.

Then again, given his track record, it really shouldn't be.

What Is This Russia?

2007-02-22T12:49:00.000-05:00

In the past, this saying might be uttered when something happened in the U.S. that was such an affront to our founding principles, that the only conceivable comparison was the communist USSR.

I guess everything old is new again.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that hundreds of prisoners who are classified as "enemy combatants" do not have the right to challenge their detention in federal court. The decision supports the Military Commissions Act, a draconian law that was passed in the waning days of the Republican controlled 109th Congress. The act allows the government to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely and prevents detainees from challenging the legality of their detention in U.S. courts.

District Court Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote, "The arguments are creative but not cogent. To accept them would be to defy the will of Congress." Funny, it was always my understanding that the role of the judicial branch was to interpret the Constitution and to determine if laws passed by Congress and signed by the President violated it. Perhaps Judge Randolph was sick on that day of law school.

I hope he has enough ink for that big rubber stamp of his.

It simply cannot be reasonable argued that detaining people without charge and access to legal resources is in keeping with our founding principles. The Bush administration and the Pentagon maintain that the people being held in Guantanamo and other secret facilities around the world represent, "vicious terrorist operatives." Perhaps so, and I'm not suggesting that we release criminals back into the world populace. However, denying alleged terrorists the same right to a fair trial that American citizens enjoy, suggests that the administration does not have faith in the very mechanisms of a free society on which they so often pontificate.

What is this Russia?

Life, Death and George W. Bush

2007-01-23T11:22:00.000-05:00

When it comes to issues of life and death, George W. Bush is a strange figure.

Yesterday, on the 34th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, the President rallied abortion opponents by saying he shares their goal of, "the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected into law."

The statement would seem to indicate that two of the President's highest values are the protection of human life and the rule of law. While I fall firmly on the pro-choice side of the reproductive rights issue, on the balance, protection of human life and the rule of law are values that I can and do embrace. It might even seem as though the President and I have found common ground.

But sadly, for our President these values seem to end at the opening of the birth canal.

For when we dig deeper, we find that the Bush record has been decidedly anti-life. Here's just a sample:

• As Governor of Texas he signed 154 death warrants. In fact, in a magazine article with Tucker Carlson, he mocked the pleas of convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker, who had recently been put to death.

• He launched the United States into a war in Iraq that to date, has resulted in over 3,000 U.S. casualties and the deaths of thousands of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

• He has vetoed funding for embryonic stem cell research, research with the potential to lead to breakthroughs in the understanding and treatment of cancer, alzheimers and parkinsons, even though the embryos that they would be taken from would be destroyed regardless.

It seems that whenever given the opportunity to show that he values life, Mr. Bush instead chooses death.

Recently a new twist emerged. In an enlightening interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, the President seemed to be uncomfortable with actually viewing death. When asked about the video of the execution of Saddam Hussein, the President had this to say:

“Somebody showed me parts of it. Yeah. I didn't wanna watch the whole thing,”

“Well, you keep saying ‘parts of it.’ What do you mean you ‘didn't wanna watch the whole thing?’” Pelley asks.

“Well, I just, I wasn't sure what to anticipate beyond the yelling and stuff like that. And I didn't…,” Bush says.

“You didn't wanna see him go through the trapdoor,” Pelley asks.

“Yeah. Yes. I didn't,” the president says.

Fascinating.

I did watch the video: The whole video. I heard the taunting and saw Hussein drop through the trap door. I saw the snap of the rope and his body swinging from the end of it; his neck wrenched at an unnatural angle. As an opponent of the death penalty, I believed it was my responsibility to view it, to come face to face with that which I oppose.

I'll concede, that if the death penalty is moral, there are few individuals more deserving of it than Saddam Hussein. But that's not the point.

The point is, that we have a President who is willing to authorize the death of others, who formulates policies that lead to tremendous loss of life, but when faced with having to really look at it, does not have the stomach to do so. It makes me think that the rehabilitation techniques of "A Clockwork Orange" maybe weren't so far off the mark.

Perhaps if Mr. Bush were made to really see death, he would not so willingly send others to it.

The "Decider" Does It Again

2007-01-06T21:14:00.000-05:00

"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Thus reads the signing statement that President Bush added to the Postal Reform Act. A signing statement is the President's final two cents on how he plans to interpret a bill that he has just signed into law. In many cases, particularly those dealing with issues of privacy, Mr. Bush has added statements that are contradictory to the law that he has just signed, or in which he claims the privilege to simplyignore the law. There's just one thing.

The Constitution affords him no right to do so. A President's signature means a bill becomes law, as written.

Much of the Postal Reform Act deals with how future increases in postage will occur, tying them to the Consumer Price Index. But a section within the act clarifies and reiterates the conditions under which the government is permitted to inspect and open mail. Specifically, it states, " The law requires government agents to get warrants to open first-class letters." It is this segment of the law that the President's signing statement addresses. Few would argue that government agents should be disallowed from opening packages that clearly contain materials hazardous to the public health and welfare. But the President takes it one step further by claiming the right to conduct physical searches of mail, without warrant, for the benefit of intelligence collection. This is a knowing and conscious violation of the law.

By adding these words on the day that the newly elected and Democratically controlled Congress was sworn in, Mr. Bush clearly signaled his intent to continue his policy of disregarding constitutional rights. He would do well to remember the first President George who when it was proposed that he be King of the United States had the wisdom to decline. Mr. Washington knew that a democracy is about the will of the people, not the will of one man. Sadly our George seems to have more in common with the other George of Washington's time; George the III of England. We shouldn't be surprised. Mr. Bush best summed up his view of executive authority when he said, "I'm the decider, and I decide what is best." Apparently he has once again decided to ignore the rule of law and the requirement of first obtaining a warrant before delving into a person's privacy.

Moreover, it would appear that the great decider has decided to give the big F-bomb You to the American people who so roundly rejected this style of leadership during last November's elections.

Goode For Nothing

2006-12-22T11:59:00.000-05:00

What makes the first amendment a remarkable piece of writing is that it protects anyone's right to pretty much say any damn thing they want, no matter how ignorant, prejudicial or just plain stupid.

That's a good thing for Virginia congressional representative, Virgil Goode (R), who in a recent letter to his constituents wrote, "The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."

The representative in question is Keith Ellison who is Muslim and who has elected to take the oath of office on the Koran rather than the Bible. In an interview with Fox News, Goode defended his letter saying, "I wish more people would take a stand and stand up for the principles on which this country was founded." He went on to say that he would like to do away with visas that let in people, "not from European countries."

I'm not sure what I find more disturbing; Mr. Goode's sentiments, his unbelievable ignorance about the founding of his own country, or the fact that his constituents re-elected him just a little over a month ago. I am sure of this, however:

As both an elected official and as a Virginian, Mr. Goode should be ashamed.

For it was his fellow Virginians James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who wrote much of the language that shaped the United States. Their words formed the bedrock values of a fledging nation; language that guarantees free speech, protects the right to dissent from the majority view, and to worship or not to worship as one sees fit. These men well understood the importance that a government has allegiance to no religious viewpoint, and moreover, that it not impose a religious point of view on its citizens.

Representative Goode would do well to bone up on the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, before the 110th Congress convenes, in order to better acquaint himself with the principles upon which he attempts to create law.

So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye 109th Congress

2006-12-13T12:10:00.000-05:00

If you type the phrase "Miserable Failure" into the Google search engine, you'll get an interesting result. Through a technique known as "google bombing," which exploits the sites ranking feature, the White House biography of George W. Bush appears first on the results list. While it may seem fitting, it is not an honour that should be his alone.

An equally strong case could be made for the exiting 109th Congress.

The 109th embodied the phrase, style over substance, through snide, high profile legislation such as the anti-flag burning amendment" and the "defense of marriage act." No matter what the odds of failure, there was no emotional hot button topic that the 109th wasn't willing to push. Granted, none of the legislation passed, but at least they got their names in the media.

Many in the media have labeled the 109th, the "Do-Nothing Congress," but as CNN Political Research Director Robert Yoon notes today, nothing could be further from the truth. The exiting Congress was responsible for 383 pieces of legislation that were ultimately signed into law. So perhaps labeling their tenure as a miserable failure is a bit too strong.

That is until you find out that over one quarter of the legislation dealt with the naming or renaming of federal buildings!

And since the President signs legislation into law, well... you can extrapolate from there.

Sure things such as Katrina relief, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, inflated gas prices, the ballooning federal deficit and the incredible trade deficit didn't get dealt with. There apparently wasn't enough time!

On the plus side there are now federal buildingss named after Ray Charles, Shirley Chisolm and Rosa Parks. Don't get me wrong, these are three Americans who I greatly admire. Their contributions to our country and culture are well known and in many cases came from tremendous personal sacrifice. They deserve the honour that was bestowed upon them and more.

It's just that I can't help but think that they'd have gladly declined it, if doing so meant that one less family lived in poverty, or that one less child lost a parent to war...

HIV/AIDS: Failure Is NOT An Option

2006-12-01T12:24:00.000-05:00

Imagine for a moment that you go to the movies to catch the latest Hollywood blockbuster release. The film has gotten great reviews and the theatre is jam packed with patrons. The movie is terrific, but when the lights come back on you notice something strange.

Everyone around you is dead.

Each day in South Africa an estimated 950 people die from AIDS and AIDS related diseases. It's the equivalent of the entire movie theatre dying around you.

And it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

In the twenty years that HIV/AIDS has more or less been in the public consciousness, rather than decrease, the worldwide infection and death rate has actually increased.

In 2004, 36.9 million people were living with HIV. Today that number is 39.5 million.
In 2005, 2.7 million people died from AIDS and AIDS related illnesses. In 2006 that number reached 2.9 million.

In the media, we often hear about the impact of AIDS on the African continent and there's no doubt that the situation there is a health crisis disaster. But these reports may also have the unintended effect of giving those of us in other parts of the world a false sense of security. HIV/AIDS isn't in our face the way it is there. Most of us haven’t watched someone we know waste away from the disease. We might not even ever have met someone infected with the HIV virus. But before those of us living in North America or Europe feel too safe, I would like to point out that the statistics sited above, are on the rise in EVERY region of the world!

AIDS is not a gay disease and it is not an African disease. It is not an affliction of just the IV drug user. It is a human disease and it has reached epidemic proportions!

The good news is that antiretroviral HIV treatments are increasingly successful in decreasing the presence of the virus in a person's body. According to the World Health Organization, "when the drugs are given in combination, they stop the HIV virus from replicating within the body, and delay the deterioration of the immune system and onset of AIDS." The challenge however, is that the drugs are expensive (CNN estimated the cost this morning at $20,000/year) and that in third world countries, only a marginal percentage of the infected population has access to them.

We must do more.

Today, I urge you to take a positive step towards turning the tide. Here are simple things that you can do:

Write to your Senator and Congressional Representative. Ask them to increase the amount of governmental funding for HIV research.
Today, wear a red ribbon as a show of awareness and support.
Make a donation to an organization that supports people with HIV and or AIDS.
Attend an educational event and learn more about the issue.
Practise safe sex.

The past is pock marked with lost opportunities and failures to act. We cannot allow or afford that to continue.

George's Same Old Song And Dance

2006-11-29T12:47:00.000-05:00

If politics was more like show business, George Bush's 15 minutes of fame would be long past and we would have already added him to the scrapheap of history that includes the likes of Kato Kaelin, Jennifer Wilbanks and the guys who gave us the Macarena. Sadly, it is not.

A mere three weeks after Republicans took a drubbing in mid-term elections, which most agree was a scathing repudiation of the President's Iraq policy, Mr. Bush is back on his old message. In spite of mounting evidence suggesting that Iraq is fragmenting into a religious civil war, the President was recently quoted as saying, "There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal."

al Qaeda...Where have I heard that tune before?

Mr. Bush fails to understand that violence in Iraq is not the work of terrorists. Just like tensions between Christianity and Islam are over a thousand years old, so are the tensions between Shiites and the Sunnis. They go back to the death of the prophet Mohammed and largely have to do with who has authority on religious matters within the Islamic faith. Any student of history knows that when conflict arises around religion, the body count quickly mounts. But then Mr. Bush by his own admission is not exactly known for his scholarly ways. Perhaps he should read a little more. Suggested topics are the crusades, Northern Ireland and the formation of the modern state of Israel.

But Nero keeps fiddling while Rome burns.

The President went on to say that, "There's one thing I'm not going to do, I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." The Iraq war is currently the fourth longest war in US history and, after Vietnam, the one that is most likely to end up in failure. Violence is spinning out of control, we’re approaching 3,000 dead military personnel and the President is back to digging in his heels. It is imperative that the incoming Congress not allow him to do so.

Tomorrow, Mr. Bush prepares to meet with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to discuss the situation and ways to curb the violence. Once again, he has come too late to the party. Key members of al-Maliki's coalition government have suspended their participation in parliament and could withdraw their support altogether. A US memo has reached the press that questions Mr. al-Maliki;s ability to manage the escalating violence, and 2,700 U.S. troops are poised to move into Baghdad in an attempt to secure it.

Can the collapse of the Iraqi government be far behind? And if so, what then?

The Very Real Dangers Of Being Ignorant

2006-11-21T13:51:00.000-05:00

In the months leading up to recent elections, President Bush peppered his speeches with the phrase, "Islamic fascists." I have taken Mr. Bush to task for these ill chosen words on many occasions, but the seed that he has planted has sadly taken root.

Point and case.

Yesterday, six Muslim Imans returning from a conference in Minneapolis were removed from a US Airways plane. The incident occurred when a passenger raised concerns about the men in a note to a flight attendant. Three of the Imans had been peacefully saying their evening prayers in the terminal just prior to the flight.

I'd like to be able to tell you that there is more to this story; that the men were removed because they were overheard making threatening statements or that they attempted to smuggle an unknown substances onto the plane. I cannot. There is nothing else to add to the story

The men were removed because of stereotyping and fear.

Situations such as this are the very real outcome of generalizations and careless language on the part of our leaders. When the President uses terms such as "Islamic fascists" he plays to our worst fears. He exacerbates already existing stereotypes and helps to galvanize opinions against a group, as well as people who appear to be part of that group.

I assure you, if this group had been comprised of six white Christian ministers, praying in English, no one would have batted an eye. There might even have been nods of respect and individuals who would have struck up conversations with the ministers. Christianity is the majority faith in the United States. It is familiar and safe.

If we are ever to break the culture of fear, we MUST move beyond what is comfortable.

A free and open society by its very nature is one that extends the same rights to those who hold the minority opinions and beliefs, as it does to those who hold the majority. The US Airways incident is a good indication of just how far the United States has strayed from this basic tenant of our existence.

This Is It

2006-11-07T13:57:00.000-05:00

That cherished day that comes only once a year. The day when we as Americans of all political ideologies and persuasions get to exercise that sacred right bestowed upon some of us by words written on parchment, and others through hardship, pain and even death.

The right to vote is not something to be taken lightly. It is the cornerstone of our democracy, the lifeblood that sustains our republic and allows the grand experiment to continue.

In recent years there have been many accusations and rumblings about whether our right to vote is being subverted. Some have even said that maybe there's no point in bothering.

I do not know if these allegations are true. Certainly they demand vigilance and investigation. They underscore the need for increased accountability, whether it be for the companies that make the voting machines, or the election boards that develop unreasonable obstacles to voting.

All of these demand our attention and scrutiny. But they do not negate our responsibility to vote.

If you have not voted today and you are registered to do so, do so. Ask every person that you encounter if they've voted. Apathy is the fuel of misdeeds. Until we create a culture where voting is viewed as essential to our existence as drawing breath, we silently give our consent to those who would take away our freedoms and rights.

Do your part today. Stand and be counted.

Be Afraid, America. Be Very Afraid!

2006-10-31T22:17:00.000-05:00

It's Halloween and there's plenty to be scared of. Here's a quick recap:

• Let's start easy. We're heading into winter and gas prices are still over $2.00/gallon. The Republicans have been making a big deal over the fact that they've dropped in recent weeks, but today they went up. And we're on the cusp of winter. I wonder what they'll do in the weeks ahead?

• We are still at war in Iraq and are rapidly approaching 3,000 dead American troops. When President Bush was re-elected in 2004, the mark was hovering around 1,000. So for a war that was proclaimed, "Mission Accomplished" six weeks after it began, we're still losing U.S. troops at the rate of about 1,000 per year.

• Meanwhile, Osama bin Ladin the man behind the September 11 terrorist attacks, is still at large. On September 17, the President said, ""I want justice. And there's an old poster out West… I recall, that said, 'Wanted, Dead or Alive.'" Yet a year later when asked about bin Ladin he had this to say, "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly (reporter), to be honest with you." Four years later, not much has changed. He still isn't concerned.

• In his 2002 State of the Union address to Congress, President Bush spoke of three nations that comprise an "axis of evil"; North Korean, Iran and Iraq. 6 years into his presidency, Iraq is on the verge of a civil war (if not already engaged in one) while both North Korea and Iran are on the verge of achieving nuclear capability. So bad is the situation that Mr. Bush has had to rely on Communist China to get North Korea back to the negotiating table. These all occurred at a time when the President claimed to have his eye on the ball. I suppose the world would already be engulfed in a nuclear fireball if he didn't!

• Then there's Afghanistan. The one country in the world that probably was complicit with the September 11 attacks. Follow the chain of events here. The President launches a prudent attack on their radical Taliban government, topples said government, has them on the run, then, in what has to be the greatest case of attention deficit disorder ever recorded, plunges our military full steam into Iraq. Four years later, the Taliban is making a resurgence, and our own military openly questions whether we can win the war.

• Finally, there is the shameful degradation of our civil liberties at home: Warrant-less wire-tapping, prisoners held in secret prisons abroad without trial or access to counsel, and a Vice President who has openly condoned the use of torture in interrogations.

Yes boys and girls, it's Halloween in America and the calls are coming from inside the country!

You cannot run. You cannot hide. You have but one recourse available to you. In seven days you can vote. And when you do, you must vote for candidates who firmly stand against these failed policies. We must elect a Congress that will challenge the President at every turn and investigate every misdeed.

For if we don't, every day will be Halloween in America.

It's Only A No Brainer If You Have No Brain

2006-10-27T16:00:00.000-04:00

In what can only be described as baffling, the White House announced today that comments made by Vice President Dick Cheney, were not an endorsement of torture. The story was reported in the Associated Press this morning.

During an interview on WDAY in Fargo, N.D., Cheney was asked if "a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives." The Vice President responded, "Well, it's a no-brainer for me but for a while there I was criticized as being the vice president for torture. We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in."

Interesting

White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow has claimed that the question was loosely worded and that Cheney did not take it to refer to the practise of water boarding, where a prisoner is dunked underwater and led to believe that he is about to be drowned.

So if that's the case, what interrogation technique DID the Vice President think he was responding to?

Do we have pool parties with our captives and playfully push their heads underwater, all the while laughing and splashing around? Given the Abu Ghraib photos, undoubtedly everyone is skinny dipping!

Maybe we bob for apples with them. It is almost Halloween after all.

Or perhaps everyone gets a super soaker and runs around dousing each other until they collapse on the floor from laughter.

Then again, there is the remote possibility that the Vice President, Tony Snow and our esteemed President are all liars

Hmm…Once again, it seems that our horrendous administration has flaunted their true colours. They tried to do it on a rinky dink station in Fargo, where they thought no one would be listening, but lo and behold, the national media was awake.

It almost goes without saying that the United States has never had a more morally bankrupt President and Vice President. With a bit of luck this latest gaffe will be a piece of kindling to help fuel their future impeachment trial.

Rush To Judgement

2006-10-26T23:01:00.000-04:00

Al Franken once wrote a book entitled, "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot." While I am generally not one who favours name calling as a means of political dialogue, recent comments from the voice of the alleged "Excellence In Broadcasting Network," leave me longing for a second volume.

As you have undoubtedly seen, actor and Parkinson's sufferer, Michael J. Fox, recently did a 30 second spot to advocate for lifting the President's ban on embryonic stem cell research. The spots, which aired in Ohio in support of Democratic Senate candidate, Claire McCaskill, showed the actor visibly shaking from the effects of his illness. The ad has caused some Republicans to cry foul, but none have done so in quite as offensive a manner as Rush Limbaugh, who claimed that Fox was, "either off his medication or acting."

As someone who was arrested for both illegal possession of narcotics AND viagra, Mr. Limbaugh is perhaps uniquely qualified to speak on the ill effects of being off one's medication.

Unfortunately, his assertions about Michael J. Fox aren't true. In the intervening days, many medical doctors have publicly gone on record stating that the symptoms exhibited by Mr. Fox are consistent with his illness. They've also said that stem cell research is the most promising pathway for curing the disease.

It's one thing to be wrong, it's another to be an insensitive buffoon.

And that's the only accurate way to characterize the on camera shaky impersonation Limbaugh did of Mr. Fox, while calling into question the veracity of his performance.

Note to Rush Limbaugh: There is nothing funny about a degenerative central nervous system disease that afflicts an estimated 4 to 6 million people worldwide. There is nothing amusing about losing your ability to control your movements, or the quality of your speech, or your ability to swallow. By the way Rush, that last one has been known to cause death.

Interestingly enough, Rush Limbaugh is a man who has fully benefited from the advances of western medicine. When he had back surgery, there was plenty of medication to ease his pain. When he suffered from erectile dysfunction there was viagra to restore his...

...well never mind.

The point is this: If he is unwilling to extend the advances of science to those who truly need them, perhaps he could at least refrain from mocking them.

He should feel ashamed, but he won't. I guess I'll just have to wait for that next Al Franken book. Hey Al, how about calling it, "Rush Limbaugh Is A Stoned Out, Limp..."

Nah. That would be mean.

Bush Signs Military Commissions Act of 2006 Into Law

2006-10-17T12:51:00.000-04:00

This morning, President Bush, signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law. With the possible exception of the Dred Scott decision, or Plessy v. Ferguson, few moments in United States history resonate as so pugnacious and egregious an affront to the declaration that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The new law pertains to the treatment of foreign nationals, suspected by our government as terrorists. I recognize that there are many of my fellow citizens who support this measure and who feel that our security is worth a "small" suppression of liberties. The question, of course, is what have we traded?

At what point have we traded so much for security, that we cease to be the nation that our founders intended?

For those who would so readily cast aside our founding principles, I suggest that you take a look at what your fear has wrought:

• The President under this law has the power to determine whether interrogation methods violate international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. It should be noted that in the past, the President approved techniques that the Supreme Court later ruled violated such laws.

• The law does not require that detainees be granted legal counsel.

• Detainees will have no legal rights to challenge their detentions in Federal Court.

• Hearsay evidence, which is neither legal in civilian OR military courts, is permissible IF the judge believes that it is from a reliable source.

• An outcome of these trials can be death.

So let me recap: Under this law, a person can be detained without charge, interrogated by methods that by most standards are considered to be torture, not allowed to challenge their detention, tried without legal counsel, judged on evidence not permissible in any other US court, sentenced to death, and finally executed.

Is this the United States that you want? And if someone you loved was subjected to this system of justice, would it be acceptable to you?

On Election Day, note how your Senator and Representative voted on this bill. Vote accordingly.

John McCain Loses His Way

2006-10-10T23:47:00.000-04:00

I've always liked John McCain. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that he is the one Republican out there whom I've considered worthy of my vote. But lately, he's been making it harder and harder to justify my doing so. As the 2008 presidential election season draws near, the good Senator has become something of a panderer.

Point and case

In 2000, McCain roundly criticized President Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University, a school that has been noted for their anti-Catholic sentiment and which at the time, had a ban on interracial dating. In a 2000 debate, he claimed that had he been invited he would have told them, "Look, what your doing in this ban on interracial dating is stupid, it's idiotic, and it is incredibly cruel to many people." Now he says that he would consider speaking there. This comes on the heels of speaking at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University this past spring, though in 2000 he labeled Mr. Falwell as an "agent of intolerance."

Sadly, the Senator had it right the first time.

Today, the AP is reporting that Senator McCain has labeled the alleged North Korean nuclear test as a failure of the Clinton Administration. A curious charge.

Let's look at the facts. The Clinton administration held bi-lateral talks with North Korea in the 1990s. During this time there was no nuclear test or random launching of missiles by Pyongyang. In fact, things on the Korean peninsula had warmed up to the point that in June of 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, the leaders of North and South Korea met to discuss reunification; something that likely would have led to the peaceful dissolution of the communist north regime.

Then the Bush administration took over. President Bush has refused to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea, instead preferring to bring in multiple partners, including, China.

Apparently the surest way to end communism in a country is to have the biggest purveyor of it, negotiate on your behalf.

In his 2002 State of the Union address, the President really stirred the pot, when he made his famous "axis of evil" statement which, of course, included North Korea.

Since then, things have deteriorated to the point where this year, North Korea has conducted 6 missile tests and an alleged nuclear test. Interestingly enough, when Bill Clinton left office, North Korea had fully honoured a 1999 moratorium on such tests.

Which brings us back to Senator McCain.

John McCain is not a stupid man. He well knows that the isolationist policy of the Bush administration has dramatically compromised peace on the Korean peninsula. Instead of standing up against it, however, he has decided to trot out that old Republican chestnut: It's Bill Clinton's fault! I guess that's what happens when you have presidential stars in your eyes.

Shame, shame, shame on you, John McCain.

If Balls Were Brains, Bush Would Be Einstein

2006-10-03T23:36:00.000-04:00

Anne Richards once remarked that the first President Bush couldn't help that he was born with a "silver foot in his mouth." If only she had known what was coming down the pike. The current Bush incarnation seems to have both feet in his, and I assure you that it is not an easy trick to accomplish when one's head is lodged firmly up one's own ass. Today our esteemed leader actually had the audacity to say that Democrats couldn't be trusted to hold the reins of Congress.

Did he not read the newspaper today?

I guess not. So let's take a moment and recount the glorious tales of our rein holding Republican Congressional leaders.

1) In 5 years they pull off an astonishing fiscal feat and transform a $236,200,000,000 budget surplus into a $318,300,000,000 budget deficit.

2) Within a week of one another, Senators Burns and Allen in full view of the media publicly utter racist remarks. If only it was a comedy sketch.

3) House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is indicted on two counts of alleged money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and ultimately resigns his seat.

4) Representative Duke Cunningham resigns from the House after pleading guilty to accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes and underreporting his income for 2004.

5) Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott on the occasion of Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday proclaims, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Thurmond ran for 1948 on the Dixiecrat ticket, a movement that promoted segregation. Lott subsequently resigned his leadership position.

6) Ohio Senator Mike DeWine runs a campaign ad that shows the airplanes flying into the World Trade Center on 9/11. Besides being incendiary, the footage is also shown to be doctored.

7) Florida Representative Mark Foley resigns from the House of Representatives after he sends sexually explicit e-mails to an underage Page.

So let's recap here: Fiscal Mismanagement, Racism, Accepting Bribes, Using National Tragedy To Win An Election and Sexual Misconduct. And these all happened within the last 6 years!

And then of course there's Iraq, Afghanistan, stem-cells, flag burning amendments, defense of marriage acts, and Katrina.

About a year ago, I wrote to President Bush and told him that his actions could only lead one to conclude that he was either a) stupid or b) a liar. I even asked him which it was, but he declined to choose a response.

Perhaps it is because I failed to include a third option: Delusional

Oops, They Did It Again!

2006-09-26T14:10:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press reports that for the second time since August, the Army has announced that they will be extending the tour of duty for troops in Iraq, past the twelve month period that they were promised. Soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division will have their tour extended an extra 46 days in order to give their replacements more training time. Last month, members of the Army's 172nd Stryker Brigade had their tour extended by up to four months. Additionally, several units are being sent to Iraq ahead of schedule.

It should go without saying that these changes are incredibly disruptive to the lives of the men and women who serve, as well as to their families. We don't really get to hear their voices and more likely than not, they'd be reluctant to complain.

The news illustrates just what a cluster-insert F-Bomb here- George Bush and company, have made of our military situation.

• Years after proclaiming, "Mission Accomplished," the situation in Iraq has gotten more unstable and more violent. It is almost at the point where administration officials are willing to refer to it as a civil war.

• Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Taliban is making a resurgence because we have diverted the majority of our military assets to Iraq. What once appeared to be a slam dunk, suddenly is looking like a ball game. And then there's the small matter that we never bothered to actually get Bin Laden, which was the prime motivation for going there in the first place.

• The administration continues to talk tough about Iran and nuclear weapons, which may be the most tangible threat that we actually face. How we are going to fight the Iranians, should it be necessary, is anybody's guess.

With all this in mind, is it any wonder that troops are being kept in harm's way for longer and longer periods of time? Can a draft be far behind? To those who would say that a draft will never happen and that mine is the voice of a defeatist, I ask this:

Are you willing to sacrifice the lives of your children or grandchildren to this cause?

Inexcusable!

2006-09-19T13:28:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press is reporting today that the United States shipped a Canadian citizen to Syria for interrogation, where he was imprisoned and allegedly subjected to torture. After a year, he was released and now has been cleared of any wrongdoing.

How Could This Have Happened?

In the early 2000's, Mr. Maher Arar met with a man who was under surveillance by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The meeting, Arar maintained, was about how to find inexpensive computer equipment. Without double checking the facts, which is standard RCMP procedure, the Canadians instead asked the United States to put Mr. Arar on a watch list as an "Islamic Extremist Individual."

On September 26, 2002, Mr. Arar was returning to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia. His flight went through New York's Kennedy Airport, where he was detained. It should be noted that he was traveling on a legal Canadian passport at the time. From there, the United States government shipped Mr. Arar to Syria, against his will, where he was imprisoned and subjected to extensive interrogation. This included beatings and whippings with electrical cables. In 2003, the Syrian government released him, with none of the allegations ever proven or charges being filed.

Mr. Arar had his case heard by the Canadian government and Justice Dennis O'Connor gave the following report, "I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offense or that his activities constitute a threat to the security of Canada." Additionally, Justice O'Connor concluded:

• That the U.S. government sent Mr. Arar to Syria despite his assertions that he would be tortured.

• That the U.S. government had not been forthcoming with Canadian officials regarding Mr. Arar's case.

• That the RCMP had no basis or grounds for describing Mr. Arar as an "Islamic Extremist Individual."

• That inaccurate information supplied by the RCMP to the U.S. government "very likely" led to the decision to send Mr. Arar to Syria.

• That Mr. Arar had in fact been tortured in Syria and was entitled to compensation.

This Is A Disgrace!

The story of Maher Arar is one rife with missteps by the Canadian government, over-zealousness on the part of the U.S. government to extract information by any manner it deems necessary, and a willingness by the Syrian government to use torture to do so.
It is a deep mark of shame that serves to underscore just how out of control the "War On Terror" has become.

Situations like these must not be allowed to continue. You know who to write.

Farewell To One Of The Greats

2006-09-15T12:15:00.000-04:00

There's so much that could be written about today. In fact, it's a veritable cornucopia of topics ranging from Republican Representative Bob Ney's guilty plea to corruption charges (get in line, Bob), to prominent Republicans such as John McCain and Colin Powell coming out against the President's proposed detainee bill. Yep, it's a treasure trove, for sure. But these weighty topics will have to wait.

This one belongs to an American original, Ann Richards.

It was with great sadness that I heard about the passing of the former Texas governor, this past Wednesday. Most of us were introduced to Ann Richards during the 1988 Democratic convention, where she delivered a memorable keynote speech. She wasn't governor yet but when she uttered the line, "Poor George Bush. He can't help it if he was born with a silver foot in his mouth," we knew that she was a force to be reckoned with. She was real, with both grace and a disarming humour that let us know she was one of us. She used her humour, to affirm the rights of women and stand up for equality when she reminded us that Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did, "only backwards and in high heels."

But Ann Richards was so much more than a quip and a well placed punch line.

Ann Richards walked the talk. She was a champion of human rights and of the human spirit. As governor, she appointed the first black University of Texas regent, the first crime victim on the state Criminal Justice Board, the first disabled person on the human services board and the first teacher to lead the State Board of Education. She pinned stars on the first African-american and female officers in the history of the Texas Rangers. As governor, she vetoed legislation that would allow people to carry concealed handguns, automatic weapons and "cop-killer bullets." She preserved the environment by vetoing a bill that would have allowed the destruction of the environment over the Edwards Aquifer. The last two items it's been postulated cost her re-election.

Still, when she left office, it was with a 60% approval rating.

Ann Richards never stopped working for the greater good, never lost her keen sense of humour, or willingness to tell the truth. She was a democrat and American of the Harry Truman variety: A type that comes along all too rarely.

Sadly, her passing reminds us that in times like these, we need her and those like her, more than ever.

Bush Paves The Road To Legalised Torture

2006-09-12T11:43:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press is reporting today that some Republican lawmakers are pushing forward a White House endorsed bill that would not only legalize certain interrogation techniques defined by many as torture, but would retroactively protect anyone who has engaged in said techniques since 2001. Strongly supported by President Bush, Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist is expected to open debate on the bill within the next week. According to reports, the techniques would be used on "high value" terror suspects, though “high value” remains undefined.

55% of respondents in a recent Time poll indicated that they support the use of harsh interrogation techniques. But what does harsh torture really mean?

Let's take a look. Practises that this bill would be sanctioned either by omission or legal definition include;

• Hypothermia – a state where the body's core temperature is less than or equal to 95 degrees Fahrenheit. The normal human body temperature is 98.6 degrees. Hypothermia is essentially is the rapid loss of body heat. Symptoms include; shivering, cold, pale, or blue-gray skin, lack of interest or concern (apathy), poor judgment, mild unsteadiness in balance or walking, slurred speech, and numb hands and fingers and difficulty performing tasks. WebMD defines hypothermia as "an emergency condition and can quickly lead to unconsciousness and death if heat loss continues."

• Stress Positions – a technique where a prisoner is put in a stance that is designed to focus discomfort on a specific area of the body. While usually not lethal, it should be noted that this practise has been denounced by organisations such as Amnesty International as constituting torture.

• Waterboarding - the practise of restraining a prisoner and either dunking him/her or pouring water over him/her to simulate the experience of drowning. It is a technique with origins that can be traced back to the Inquisition. Complications from this form of interrogation can include; damage to the lungs, brain damage, broken bones and death.
In a 2005 report, ABC News was told by current and former CIA officers that, they were trained to handcuff the prisoner and cover his face with cellophane to enhance the distress. Interestingly enough, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a torture victim during the Vietnam War, has described the water board technique as a "very exquisite torture" and one that should be outlawed.

This Is What President Bush Is Asking Congress To Legalize. Would You Be Proud To Say That Your Country Endorses And Engages In These Practises?

There is little empirical evidence to suggest that torture works and even if it did, is it ethically or morally acceptable? Sadly, in the mindset of our current President, it appears as though end justifies the means. In case you’re unconvinced, let me break it down some more.

• According to Elisa Massimino, the Washington director for Human Rights First, if passed, we would be the first nation in the history of the world to legally reduce the protections of the Geneva Conventions. That's right, not China, not Vietnam, not Iran, North Korea or even the old Soviet Union. But rather, the United States of America.

• Once we decide to lower the threshold as to what constitutes torture, it can be argued that American POWs will be subjected to the same treatment.

So Here's What I'd Like To Ask President Bush

If you woke up tomorrow and saw on the news that the Iranian or North Korean President was advocating the legalisation of these practises in his country, and that the legislative body had approved them, would it be o.k.?

My guess is not so much.

So why then do George Bush, Dick Cheney and Bill Frist (a medical doctor, no less) believe that they are acceptable in the United States? There is no sane answer that I can think of.

In my end analysis, this bill is an affront to the bedrock values of our country. Please write President Bush as well as, your Senators and Congressional Representative and tell them what they should already know:

Torture in any form is unacceptable!

The Worst Kept Secret, The Worst Sin Yet!

2006-09-07T19:16:00.000-04:00

George Bush has finally done it. He's finally admitted to what those of us with a conscience, with a sense of right and wrong, with a belief in human rights had hoped wasn't true. He's admitted that the United States government has willfully flaunted the Geneva Conventions and even sidestepped our own laws. Yesterday, George Bush publicly, and without shame or remorse, admitted that our government has sent prisoners to secret prisons in other nations. No one knows where these prisons are, the condition of the incarcerated, or even who they are for certain. They have not been charged with formal crimes, nor given access to legal representation. Every liberty and right that we as citizens of the United States enjoy, has been stripped from these individuals. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that we are likely to find good people in these places. But what disturbs me is this:

Our government, and far too many of our fellow citizens, are readily willing to cast aside the bedrock rights upon which our nation was founded, in the name of security.

I've said this before. The United States is the greatest beacon of hope, determination and experiment in democracy the world has ever seen. Every time that we fail to live by our values, every time that we disregard our laws, because they are inconvenient or because we are afraid, we become a caricature of freedom instead of the embodiment of it.

There is no acceptable excuse.

George Bush can now add to his record yet another staggering abuse of human rights. He can count among his attributes the very qualities that he claims to despise in leaders such as; Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

How is the world supposed to differentiate? How are we?

Instead of entering the Presidential pantheon of luminaries such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt, Bush is likely to find himself viewed by historians in the company of James Buchanan, perhaps the most ineffectual president in our history. They share a striking similarity; the inability to rise to the challenge of their time. The result in both cases was severe: Death, suffering, destruction and war.
In Buchanan's case, the damage was to our nation. In Bush's case it is to our nation and to our world.

There's not a damn thing that I can do to stop George Bush, save write and do my part to see that Congress turns to the Democrats this mid-term election. Perhaps with Congressional checks we can begin to stem the wounds that ooze our liberty and rights one drop at a time. Perhaps. But when the President's term is over, I hope that the world will hold him accountable. Because of this I am certain.

George Bush should stand trial for crimes against humanity.

Tsk, Tsk, Bill Frist

2006-09-05T13:23:00.000-04:00

The Associate Press recently reported that Senate Majority Leader, Dr. Bill Frist (MD) is likely to be fined by the Tennessee Department of Health for failing to complete continuing education that is required of physicians with active licenses. It appears that the Senator will receive a fine of $40 for every hour that he failed to complete and be required to make up the hours within 6 months.

Understandably a United States Senator, particularly when that person is the Majority Leader, is busy. I can see how hours might not get completed in the manner that they should have. Things happen in life sometimes. But here's the kicker.

Senator Frist on his license renewal form certified that he HAD fulfilled the requirement.

Oops!

The explanation from the Frist camp is that a representative signed the renewal papers and that this person was "apparently unaware" of the continuing education requirement.

Really? That's the best spin they could find?

Let's see if I understand.

• In Tennessee, if you are a licensed medical doctor, someone other than yourself can sign your license renewal form? The Frist camp claims this is so. If it is, Tennessee really needs to look at their licensing procedures.

• The Tennessee license renewal form is apparently so obtuse that it is unclear that continuing education is required. I'm sure that there is no section where a physician has to, oh I don't know, document what they did and for how many hours.

It brings to mind the old Steve Martin comedy bit where his explanation for not paying his taxes is, "I forgot."

Mistakes happen in life. We'd like to believe that our physcians are less prone to making them, but they're just people. What is troubling about this is that Bill Frist, the Senate Majority Leader and a man who trots out his medical credentials liberally, allowed this to happen. It troubles me that he has been so cavalier with his medical license. If the person who filled out Frist's application wasn't aware of the continuing ed requirement, shouldn't Senator Frist at least know about it. Did he not think that personally reviewing HIS own license renewal application was a good idea? Hello, McFly?

In the end, it serves to make the Senator look either stupid or shady. Neither look wears well in a contentious election year.

You Don't HAVE To Be Brain Damaged To Be A Republican Leader...

2006-08-31T18:56:00.000-04:00

But it sure couldn't hurt.

The great comedian Bill Cosby used to do a bit where he described his children as being brain damaged. The things that they did and the excuses that came out of their mouths were so inexplicable, that the venerable Mr. Cosby concluded that brain damage was the only plausible explanation. While the Democrats have certainly had their share of less than stellar media moments, it seems as though the Republicans have recently cornered the market.

In an election year this is an incredibly stupid strategy!

Within the last two weeks, here are some of the gems that they've uttered:

• Senator Conrad Burns (Montana) at a recent campaign event said that the United States is up against a faceless enemy who "drive taxi cabs in the daytime and kill at night."

• Senator George Allen (Virginia) recently referred to a staff member of his opponent, Jim Webb, by the name 'Macaca.' "This fellow over here with the yellow shirt -- Macaca or whatever his name is -- he's with my opponent," Allen said. "He's following us around everywhere." The term 'macaca' is a genus of monkey and in some parts of the world is considered a racial slur. The staff member in question happened to be a person of colour.

• Tramm Hudson, a republican congressional candidate who is looking to replace another gem, Kathleen Harris, was quoted as saying, "I grew up in Alabama and I understand and I know this from my own experiences that blacks aren't the best swimmers or may not even know how to swim."

• And then there is our esteemed President who yesterday, again, framed the current struggle as a, “war against Islamic fascism.”

Do I detect a hint of racism in the Republican Party stew?

In a critical mid-term election year, these statements raise many questions. Is the Repubican leadership really that arrogant? Are they insensitive, or worse, racist? Do they care? Do they think they are so invincible that showing their true colours isn’t going to make a difference?

Perhaps so.

If not, the only other plausible explanation, to paraphrase Mr. Cosby, is that they’re brain damaged.

From The Safety Of Being Out Of Range

2006-08-29T15:01:00.000-04:00

This morning, to mark the one-year anniversary of the devastation that Hurricane Katrina caused in New Orleans and the gulf coast region, President Bush called on former residents to return. Mr. Bush delivered these remarks from St. Louis Cathedral in the French Quarter, an area that was not impacted by the storm. The Associated Press quoted the President as saying, "I know you love New Orleans, and New Orleans needs you." She needs people coming home. She needs people - she needs those saints to come marching back, is what she needs!"

It raises a question: Come home to what?

On Monday, at a White House press conference, the President admitted that a large part of the $110 billion committed by the Federal government to Katrina relief has not made it to Louisiana. It seems that the administration’s response a year later is not any better than it was when the actual disaster occurred. Sadly, it reeks of the mediocrity that we’ve come to expect from six years of conservative Republicanism.

Just how grim are things? Take a look. The AP reports that one year later:

Only half of New Orleans has electricity.

Half its hospitals are closed.

Violent crime is up.

Tens of thousands of families still live in trailers and mobile homes.

Much debris remains to be cleared.

And then there's the small matter of the levees...

This spring, the Army Corps of Engineers acknowledged that the levees would not be up to category 3 standards (i.e. Katrina levels) by June, the official start of hurricane season. Of even greater concern is the fact that there is no timetable or plan in place to bring them up to category 4 or 5 standards.
I don’t blame the Army Corps of Engineers. They are doing a tremendous job of trying to fix something that they reported was inadequate as far back as 1996. Something by the way, which President Clinton increased funding for and which President Bush significantly slashed. The conclusion: New Orleans is one good storm away from another disaster.

But the President says return. Well, I suppose he's never misled us before...

Edward R. Murrow Must Be Spinning In His Grave

2006-08-25T16:05:00.000-04:00

CBS announced yesterday that the upcoming season of the show Survivor would feature teams divided by race. It came to my attention while watching Headline News and my mouth literally dropped open from shock. "Is this a sick joke?" I thought. Um, that would be a no on the "sick joke" thing, John.

CBS issued the following statement in defense of it's actions, "CBS fully recognizes the controversial nature of this format but has full confidence in the producers and their ability to produce the program in a responsible manner," the statement said. "'Survivor' is a program that is no stranger to controversy and has always answered its critics on the screen." CNN quoted host Jeff Probst as saying that the format would be a "social experiment."

To quote that great MASH (ironically a CBS program) character, Sherman Potter, "Horse Hockey!"

Experiments are conducted for a reason. They are based on a hypothesis and the ability to test that hypothesis under controlled and statistically valid criteria. I am hard pressed to see how Survivor meets this benchmark.
So what exactly is the hypothesis of this "social experiment?" What social value does it deliver? None that I can discover.

Human culture has an ugly history of dividing itself among arbitrary lines. In the United States, few lines have been uglier, more violent, hurtful or discriminatory than that of race. We are one hundred and forty one years past the end of the Civil War and still, the echoes and shame of slavery haunt our culture. We are a scant sixty two years from when the United States Supreme Court legally banished the disgrace of segregation. We are a mere forty two and forty one years, respectively, from the passing of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts and still the memories sting. The neglect of so many African-Americans in the aftermath of Katrina had many wondering if race played a part in the slow Federal response. America has so much healing yet to do.

So how could CBS, the network of Murrow and Cronkite, possibly believe that this is a good idea?

One word: RATINGS

Shame, shame, shame, CBS! I can't say it enough times. How dare you use race in such a crass and insensitive way?

So here's the deal. Until CBS abandons this premise, I will not watch any of their programs. I will delete them from my favourite channels list and un-TIVO all of their shows. All except for one. I will TIVO the first Survivor to see who has the audacity to be a sponsor. Then I will stop buying their products. All of them. And I'll write them to let them know it. I hope that you will do the same.

If you want to get started, please visit www.cbs.com and click on the feedback link that is located on the bottom of the page.

Joe-Fo

2006-08-21T12:46:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press reported today that Connecticut Senator, Joe Lieberman has called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to resign. Lieberman was quoted on the CBS news program, Face The Nation, as saying, "With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq." An unusual turn of events for the Democratic Senator who is largely viewed as being a strong supporter of the Iraq campaign.

An unusual turn and a hypocritical one at that.

It's news to no one that Lieberman recently lost the Democratic primary to newcomer Ned LaMont, or that the result appears to be a rebuke for the Senator's close alignment with the policies of the Bush Administration. So why the change of heart now? Call me cynical, but it appears that Senator Lieberman is trying to reinvent himself as a moderate on the Iraq situation.

There's just one minour problem... it lacks any shred of credibility.

Joe Lieberman lost all credibility when he decided to run for re-election as a democrat, participated in the democratic primary, lost the primary, and then would not concede to the will of the voting members of the Democratic Party. Now that he has decided to run as an independent, his latest statement is an obvious attempt to move, if not to the left, certainly, to the middle. Think about it. If he really feels that Iraq has been so badly botched that the best redress is for the Secretary of Defense to resign, why didn't he say it two weeks ago? The reason is this. He doesn't believe it. Joe Lieberman as honourable as he once appeared, seems to have lost his ethical center. So when he calls for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation, it just sounds fraudulent. Like the athlete who hangs on for one too many seasons, he seems unable to let go. It's become about him instead of the job. And that's the strongest reason why Connecticut voters should overwhelmingly defeat his independent candidacy.

The really sad thing is that Senator Lieberman's statements and actions have not only disrespected the voters and democratic process, but have also tarnished what had been a very admirable Senatorial career.

Say it ain't so, Joe.

Dare We Believe?

2006-08-18T16:27:00.000-04:00

Maybe it's just a moment of sanity amidst the swirling madness and paranoia of the Bush Administration. Maybe it's the beginning of the end. I am not speaking about the Armageddon that so many seem to believe is imminent; and doing their damned best to bring about. I am speaking about the ruling by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor that found the administration's warrantless surveillance program to not only be illegal, but unconstitutional on not one, but two grounds!

A standing ovation please, for Judge Anna Diggs Taylor

The Associated Press reported yesterday that Judge Diggs Taylor found that the program violated the first amendment right to free speech, the fourth amendment right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and that it violated the FISA court laws. Though the administration is vowing to appeal the case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, this is nevertheless a defeat for the lawlessness and emerging facism of the Bush White House.

Judge Diggs Taylor wrote in her 43 page opinion, "It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," she wrote. "The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another."

Eloquent and true. It's about damn time.

Now let's hope that the 6th circuit and the Supreme Court, should the 6th circuit uphold the ruling, see it the same way.

Perhaps Democracy in America is not dead just yet.

The Problem(s) With Poorly Chosen Words

2006-08-13T23:16:00.000-04:00

On Thursday, August 10, I awoke to the news that British intelligence had successfully foiled an Al Qaeda plot to blow up multiple flights traveling from the U.K. to the U.S. The British are to be commended for their excellent work in thwarting this plot and in saving lives. It wasn't long before President Bush was on CNN commenting on the situation and offering a telling and incorrect assessment of the issue.

"(The plot is) a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation".

There are several problems with the President's statement, problems that both incorrectly frame the issue and which frankly, exacerbate it:

We are not at war with Islam.
We are not at war with fascists.
We are not at war at all.
They do not wish to destroy us because we love freedom.

Issue One: We are not at war with Islam

While the individuals who we are fighting are in fact radical practitioners of Islam, it is irresponsible and dangerous to characterise this as a war with Islam. By doing so, the President shows just how deeply he doesn't understand the history of Christianity, Islam and the Crusades. He doesn't understand that some of the animosities and issues go back 1,200 years. By intentionally using the word "Islamic" in his statement the President seeks to galvanize Americans and demonize a group. It was a tactic very successfully used by governments that WERE fascist most notably Nazi Germany. In 1939, Adolf Hitler had this to say about the Jews:

if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"

See any parallels?

Issue Two: We are not at war with fascists

It's easy to throw terms such as fascist around, but how many people can actually define it? That's the whole point, of course, so here's the Webster definition.

Fascism Defined:

Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent.

Let's see, in order to be a fascist you must promote the primacy of the state over individual rights. OK, I might characterise the Taliban as fascist and they certainly were fundamentalists. However, Mr. Bush might want to take a good hard look in the mirror. It could well be argued that a government that spies on the communications of its own citizens without obtaining warrants, which holds people in detention without charges, that has no quibble with using torture has also eased on down the fascist road. And while he's at it, the President might do well to take a look at some of the nations that we are friendly with, most notably Saudi Arabia. Hmm....

Al Qaeda is most certainly a terrorist organization, in other words, a political organisation that uses violence to achieve a political goal. But fascist, no.

Issue Three: We are not at war at all.

As I pointed out in a previous post, saying that we are engaged in a war on terror is incorrect. Terrorism is a technique and a concept. You can declare war on a nation, but you can not declare war on a concept. We went to war against Afghanistan because their government harboured terrorists. That was a military situation. Once the Taliban was overthrown, we fought terrorism in Afghanistan. That is now a law enforcement issue.

The distinction is important. Not only should wars be rare, but they should have definable enemies, outcomes and benchmarks. The "war on terror" has few of those aspects.

Issue Four: They do not wish to destroy us because we love freedom.

I challenge the President to find me one verifiable quote from any major Al Qaeda leader stating that the reason for 9/11 or any of the other terrorist attacks of which they have been a part is due to the fact that they hate our freedom (or because we love freedom). This is not about hating freedom. This is about a feeling of oppression. In a 2004 tape believed by the Bush Administration to be authentic, bin Ladin was quoted as saying, "We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours." He stated, "While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women,"

There is no amount of persuasion that will ever make me accept 9/11 as a justifiable response to political disenfranchisement. However, it's damn time that our President and our government stop trying to stoke nationalistic fires and begin to understand the history and roots of these problems.

Pithy statements such as the one George Bush made on Thursday may fire up the Republican base in an election year. They will likely lead to the increased suppression of individual liberties. They probably will lead to more war and a large number of both military and civilian casualties.

But they will never, under any circumstances whatsoever, advance the cause of peace.

Pennsylvania Republicans Go Green?

2006-08-03T16:01:00.000-04:00

It's pretty much common knowledge that Ralph Nader's 2000 Green Party presidential candidacy siphoned enough votes from Al Gore in Florida, to throw the state's electoral votes, and ultimately the Presidency, to George Bush. Well that's the official record anyway. But I digress.

On Monday, Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, down by double digits in polls to Democratic challenger Bob Casey Jr., announced that he would welcome more names on the ballot. The name that he would particularly welcome is long shot Green Party candidate, Carl Romanelli.

What could the reason be?

Is Santorum eager for the thrill of competition? Um...not so much.

Is he a champion of the underdog? A quick look at his voting record will quickly show why it's impossible to even ask that question with a straight face.

Is it because a Romanelli candidacy might siphon enough votes from his Democratic opponent Bob Casey to return him to the Senate?

Ding! Winner!

Carl Romanelli had what I would consider a pretty good June. Federal Election Commission records show that in June, the Luzerne County Green Party had a banner month raising $66,000 from a mere 20 donors!
This makes up almost 70% of the $100,000 that his campaign raised to help collect enough signatures to get him on the ballot. What's really interesting about Romanelli's incredible June fundraising is that $29,000 of the $66,000 raised came from donors who had also contributed to the Santorum campaign. Even more fascinating is the fact that most of the rest came from people who had financially supported Republican candidates.

Has The Day Finally Arrived When Republicans And Greenies Will Hold Hands And Sing Kumbaya?

Not bloody likely. Santorum knows that his record is so far to the right of even his own party, that his chances of reelection are increasingly remote. Rather than step up and debate his record, it seems that he's adopted the motto, "If you can't beat 'em, cheat 'em." How apropos for a candidate whose name is increasingly linked with allegations of ethical improprieties. On his journey to reelection, it seems that Senator Santorum has taken a short cut down the low road.

Well, at least he knows the way.

Price Gouging? Um, What Price Gouging?

2006-07-27T20:07:00.000-04:00

I should write an, "Idiot's Guide To Republican Governance." This timeline is truly amazing!

January 1, 2001
The price of gas is $1.22 a gallon.

August 29, 2005
Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans. Gas prices rise immediately .

April 26, 2006
After oil companies earn record first quarter profits, President Bush says,
"Americans understand by and large that the price of crude oil is going up and that [gas] prices are going up, but what they don't want and will not accept is manipulation of the market," Bush said. "And neither will I." He promises an investigation into price gouging allegations.

April 28, 2006
A mere 2 days after pledging to investigate price gouging allegations, President Bush says, there was "no evidence" of price-gouging of consumers. He also rejects calls by some lawmakers for a tax on oil company windfall profits.

July23, 2006
Gas prices reach over $3.00 gallon. The highest price in U.S. history.

July 28, 2006
Oil companies have incredible second quarter earnings.
• Exxon reports $10.36 billion in second quarter net income, a 36% increase.
• ConocoPhillips reports a 65 percent increase in profit for the second quarter.

February 1, 2009
George Bush is named to the Board of Directors of ExxonMobile-ChevronShellConico. Gas is now $9.00/gallon.

Get the point?

Write your congressional representatives and demand an investigation.

A Question That Every American Should Ask

2006-07-24T00:11:00.000-04:00

In a 1980 debate, then candidate Ronald Reagan asked America a question: Are you better off than you were four years ago? He maintained that the answer was no and, soon after, was swept into office. Four years later in a 1984 debate, he reframed the question: Is America better off now than it was four years ago? The answer this time was presumably yes, and he was re-elected in a landslide.

For the past five years, the Republican Party has controlled the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives. They are and have been the majority party. Since the Democrats can't override anything that the majority party really wants to do, it's fair to say that the record of the past five and half years belongs to the Republicans. If the United States is better off, the Republicans get to claim the credit. If not, they must bear the responsibility.

It's time for Democrats to frame this next election by taking a page from the Reagan playbook:

Is America Better Off Now, Than It Was Five Years Ago?

Let's see what the data suggests: (Hint: if it's in red, it's worse):

Energy

• On January 1, 2001 - The price of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.22/gallon.

• On July 23, 2006 - The price of regular unleaded gasoline had risen to $3.01/gallon.

Budget Management

• In 2000, the federal government had a budget surplus of $236,200,000,000.

• In 2005, the federal government had a budget deficit of $318,300,000,000.

War and Peace

• On January 1, 2001, the United States was engaged in no major conflicts. In the previous year, no US soldier had been killed by hostile action.

• On July 20, 2006, the United States was engaged in two conflicts (Afghanistan and Iraq). Since January 1, 2001,
2,882 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Economy - Unemployment

• On January 1, 2001 - The US unemployment rate was 3.7%

• On July 1, 2006 - The US unemployment rate was 4.7%

The Economy - Trade

• On December 31, 2000, the annual trade deficit was $436,103,000

• On December 31, 2000, the annual trade deficit was $767,475,000

So what do you think? Is America better off now than it was 5 years ago?

The answer should be a resounding NO and it's our job to help make the case. To that end, I invite, encourage and implore you to e-mail this information to anyone who you feel either a) doesn't have the facts or b) agrees, but needs statistical data to help make the case to others.

A lot of people know that things don't feel right in the United States, but may need help bringing it all into focus. That's where you come in! OK, you've had your pep talk, you've got your ammo, now get out there and fight!

Sources:

Associated Press:
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060724/D8J21NCO0.html?PG=home&SEC=news

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

United States Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0004.html#2005
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0004.html#2005

United States Congressional Budget Office:
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

United States Department of Defense:
http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates.pdf

United States Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.htm

George Bush: The Champion Of Life?

2006-07-21T23:12:00.000-04:00

George Bush is the undisputed champion of life. No wait, that's not quite right. George Bush is the undisputed champion of potential life. For the first time in his Presidency, Mr. Bush exercised his constitutional right to veto a bill passed by Congress, when he struck down the embryonic stem cell research bill. This bill would have loosened restrictions on federal funding for research that scientists believe could lead to significant breakthroughs in the treatment of spinal cord injuries, cancer, burns, diabetes, strokes and alzheimer's.

A quick primer on stem cells.

Stem cells are a type of cell with the potential to turn into any other type of cell. This flexibility means that they could be used to repair just about anything that goes wrong in the body. While adults do produce stem cells, it is believed that they are less adaptable than the embryonic version. Mr. Bush's objection is that in order to get them, unused frozen embryos that are stored at fertility clinics must be destroyed. He cites that some of these embryos were 'adopted' by childless couples who were able to gestate them into children. Essentially, he believes that destroying the embryos is equivalent to destroying life. OK, I can't ding someone who puts a premium on life.

But let's examine the Bush record on the value of life...

o While Governor of Texas, Mr. Bush presided over the execution of 154 individuals including some that were alleged to be mentally retarded.

o He cares so much about life that he launched a war based on evidence that he likely knew was faulty. The result has been the death, of over 2,000 American soldiers, many who were not equipped with proper body armor, and a much greater number of civilians.

o President Bush values life so highly that when Hurricane Katrina devastated the gulf coast, he launched an immediate emergency response that saved over 1,300 lives. No wait, he didn't.

In almost every situation, when given the opportunity to show that he holds life sacred, President Bush has failed!

Mr. Bush would have you believe that, someday, every frozen embryo will be gestated and adopted. That's just not the case. While I certainly support making these embryos available to people who want to have families and cannot, the truth is that the embryonic supply FAR exceeds the demand. As a result, many of these embryos end up being destroyed. So, rather than allow them to be used in research that might save millions of lives worldwide, the President would rather see them thrown away. It's another case where Mr. Bush shows that he just doesn't get it.

So here's the deal:

o I hope that President Bush never has to watch his mother Barbara get taken a piece at a time, the way so many families of Alzheimer's victims have (And I know, because I'm from one of those families).

o I hope that he never has to watch his wife Laura wither away from the ravages of cancer.

o I hope that neither of his daughters ever have a car accident that leaves them a quadriplegic because of a spinal cord injury.

I hope that none of these tragedies ever personally touch the President, his family, or anyone whom he loves. But if they did, maybe he'd understand why his veto not only fails to affirm life, but why it seems like a death sentence to so many people.

Has Bush Obstructed Justice?

2006-07-19T11:41:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press reported yesterday, that U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez stated before Congress that President Bush personally blocked justice department officials from conducting an internal probe into allegations of warrantless wiretapping by his administration.

The Office of Professional Responsibility, a unit within the Justice Department, was tasked with the investigation. When questioned by Republican Senator Arlen Specter, who asked, ""It was highly classified, very important and many other lawyers had access. Why not OPR?", Gonzalez replied, "The president of the United States makes the decision." Later that day, Press Secretary, Tony Snow explained, "The president did not consider the Justice unit that functions as a legal ethics watchdog to be the 'proper venue.'"

Is he kidding? Who better THAN the unit of the Justice Department that functions as the legal ethics watchdog?

Isn't that the MOST proper venue to investigate alleged legal improprieties? Of course it is and the President knows it. There's just one small problem. If he lets them investigate, they are going to quickly discover that the law has been violated, repeatedly. So once again, Mr. Bush drapes the long veil of "national security" over the issue and expects that it will go unchallenged.

Republicans are well skilled at framing issues into digestable sound bytes for the public's consumption. One need only listen to the news this week and you will hear them beginning to refer to current world conflicts as the beginning of World War III (convenient in an election year). I think it is critical that those who stand in opposition to this President begin to do the same.

When the President of the United States prohibits the legally charged unit of the Justice Department from investigating his own alleged improprieties, it is plain and simple, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE!

No one has called it that yet, but that's what it is. In the most cynical and Nixonian sense, President Bush is obstructing justice. And that in and of itself is a crime.

It's time for Congress to get off their asses and investigate!

Why Is Karl Rove Still Employed By George Bush?

2006-07-12T15:42:00.000-04:00

The truth on the Valerie Plame incident is slowly starting to come out, and while no formal charges have been filed against Karl Rove, journalist Robert Novak confirms that Rove was indeed one of his sources. On February 11, 2004, CNN quoted President Bush as saying, "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." Even the conservative Fox News reports that Novak is not the first reporter to implicate Rove, which raises a question. Why is Karl Rove employed by the White House? Simple.

President Bush is splitting legal hairs, in a way that even Bill Clinton would have to admire.

While Mr. Clinton managed to muddy the law concerning the legal definition of sex, Mr. Bush is attempting to redefine what is considered treason. Since special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald announced that Rove won't be charged in the leak case, Mr. Bush can argue that technically, Rove has not "violated law." Whether Mr. Fitzgerald is helping Rove to skate, or setting him up to go after someone bigger, say the Vice President for example, remains to be seen.

It's the spirit of the law that matters here!

And it is now clear that Karl Rove violated that. By confirming Valarie Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative, to Robert Novak and others in the media, the spirit of the law was violated and George Bush knows it. Members of an administration should be above reproach especially when dealing with issues of national security and Karl Rove failed that litmus test. By allowing him to remain as a member of his administration, so has Mr. Bush. This should be unacceptable to Americans of any political persuasion.

What you can do about it:

Call your Senators and Representatives. Ask them to publicly call for the President to terminate Karl Rove's employment within the administration. The number for the Congressional switchboard is: (202) 224-3121

E-mail your Senator or Representative and ask them to the same. Multiple contacts have a way of making an impression.

E-mail President Bush and demand that he restore integrity to the Executive Branch by terminating Mr. Rove.

After mid-term election repeat the first two steps and ask a (hopefully) Democratic majority in Congress to launch independent investigations into the Valerie Plame affair.

Is It Any Wonder That It's Come To This?

2006-07-10T15:35:00.000-04:00

Reuters is reporting today that the Iraqi government is about to ask the United Nations to end immunity from local law for U.S. troops serving in Iraq. This comes on the heels of five soldiers being charged in a rape-murder case as well as, the killing of 24 people at Haditha and of course, the infamous abuses at Abu Ghraib prison. While it is unlikely, that the U.S. government would ever agree to submit to this request, it is a clear sign that the alliance between the U.S. and Iraqi governments is fraying.

I want to be clear, there is no acceptable excuse for commiting acts of torture, rape or murder.

But I will argue that these heinous acts are symptoms of a much bigger problem: Troops that are over-strained after multiple tours of duty and military "Stop Loss" programs designed to prevent attrition in the ranks, a reliance on Guardsmen who may not have been adequately prepared for this type of fighting, and no discernable exit strategy on the part of our leaders.

The majority of troops serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are honourable, decent, people. Nevertheless, it is critical that every allegation of impropriety be fully investigated if the United States is to have any credibility in the eyes of the world, or even within our own borders. Perpetrators of these acts must face military justice. But it is critical that we investigate deeper, that we search our souls and ask the tough questions. Why are these things happening? What circumstances have contributed to them? How can we ensure that they will never happen again? And perhaps the most important question of all:

When and how do we hold accountable our leaders, who created this situation in the first place?

35 Words That Can Still Change The World

2006-07-04T14:52:00.000-04:00

Today is the 4th of July, Independence Day here in the United States. It was on this day in Philadelphia, two hundred and thirty years ago, that a group of individuals made a bold declaration to the world. They wrote,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

35 words.

It was a radical notion, a notion that required many years of bloody fighting before the words could be transformed from page to action. And even then, there were significant imperfections along the way. Yet here we sit over two centuries later and those 35 words remain among our most cherished values.

If I were to take a straw poll on just about any street in the country, I'm confident that most would agree that these 35 words are in many ways our lasting legacy to humankind. It's a legacy that I am proud to be associated with, if only by luck of birth.

Now pretend for a moment that a place existed where:

- Families were restricted by the State to having just one child.

- The only churches one could attend without fear of imprisonment were those deemed as "patriotic churches."

- Citizens could be detained and imprisoned for up to three years without charge.

- Over 6,000,000 people existed in forced labour prison camps.

- The government owned over $260 billion dollars of the U.S. debt, the largest of any foreign country.

- They enjoyed a $200 trade SURPLUS with the United States.

- Their infrastructure was such that they were quickly challenging the United States as the worlds largest consumer of oil.

Oh, and one more thing. Imagine that this place is also a nuclear power with a very large arsenal.

And now the reality check.

Would you be shocked if I told you that such a place does exist? Or that the United States and most of us, probably including you, are helping to make it happen? I hope that you would be indignant, outraged and proclaim me a liar. Sadly, the last would not be true.

All of these statements apply to the Peoples Republic of China.

According to the CIA World Fact Book, China has an estimated population of
1,313,973,713, which accounts for a little over 20% of all people on the planet earth (6,525,170,264). They hold a significant trade surplus with the United States and in turn own a substantial portion of our debt. Why is this a problem? Well, as the BBC put it, "Should China cut its US dollar holdings, this could drive up long-term yields on US bonds, which could in turn put pressure on interest rates." Translation: massive inflation. Our largest competitor for oil has the ability to significantly impact our economy to the negative. But you want to know something? That's the least of my cares. Because even if they did, we would still live in relative freedom.

You should certainly be aware of the economic threat that China poses, but on this Independence Day, I want you to remember that over 20% of our fellow humans beings, in THIS ONE COUNTRY ALONE, do not share our freedoms.

Search the internet and you will find reports about forced labor prison camps (condemned by Congress in 1997), about female babies being abandoned or allegations of forced abortions because of restrictive state imposed birth control measures. You'll read about torture and executions without fair trial, about the suppression of groups with peaceful religious and philosophical beiefs. Don't believe me? Search the term "Falun Gong."

Will you sit idly by?

I hope not. Here are some things that you can do:

- Stop buying products that are made in China.

- Let retailers know of your intent to do so.

- Petition your Congressional representatives and ask them to tie China's access to
U.S. markets to verifiable human rights improvements.

- Participate in organizations such as Amnesty International, which work to promote human rights.

Today, remember those 35 words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

On this Independence Day, you have the power to help ensure that they form not only the foundation of human rights in the United States, but that they become the bedrock on which our global society rests.

Supremes On Key Over Guantanamo

2006-06-30T12:47:00.000-04:00

In the current political environment, it's not often that the news out of Washington is about our government upholding the principles of the Constitution or those of international law. In fact I think it would be fair to say that the Executive Branch has become a fetid sewer of lies, suspect ethics, character assassination, and policies that are more reminiscent of Benito Mussolini than Abraham Lincoln. Yep, it's been a hard couple of years to be a left of center American.

Where Have You Gone, Thomas Jefferson? A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes To You

One of the greatest marks of shame has been the detention of over 450 individuals, often without the benefit of charges, access to legal counsel, or trial, in Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The crux of the case that the Supreme Court recently reviewed was that the special military tribunals devised by the Bush Administration which made it difficult for suspects to defend themselves, specifically in regards to confronting accusers and being present for all parts of a trial. This is a fundamental right that every American enjoys. But since these are not American citizens, the Bush Administration has argued that they are not entitled to the same legal protections. While perhaps technically true, the practise flys in the face of a founding principle of our nation: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Not just Americans, everyone. If we are all equal, then we deserve equal rights.

Why The Court Got It Right

What the Supreme Court did was uphold this crucial premise. They said that the Bush Administration does not have the right to simply make up a special legal system. They said that what the administration created did not provide for minimum legal protections under international law. I applaud the Court for taking a positive step to help ensure human rights and for upholding a founding American value.

If we do not live by that which we say we value, we are sure to become that which we say we despise.

It's Safer To Be A Dessert In The Movie "American Pie", Than It Is To Be The Constitution In The Hands Of President Bush

2006-06-26T18:58:00.000-04:00

President Bush condemed the New York Times as "disgraceful" for disclosing a secret CIA-Treasury program to track millions of financial records in search of terrorist suspects, the Associated Press reported.

Um, excuse me, black pot?

Let me see if I got this right. The disgrace is NOT the fact that Mr. Bush authorized the review of private financial records, (without probable cause or properly obtained and executed warrant) but RATHER that the New York Times had the audacity to tell us about it.

Apparently, exposing a violation of the law is bad, but trampling the Fourth Amendment rights of millions of Americans, not so much.

Vice-President, Dick Cheney added, "The New York Times has now twice - two separate occasions - disclosed programs; both times they had been asked not to publish those stories by senior administration officials. They went ahead anyway. The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging."

You bet they're damaging. They're damaging to the bad faith efforts of an Administration that has:

- Authorized the warrantless wiretapping of our phone conversations.

and

- Disclosed the classified identity of a CIA operative, otherwise known as treason.

Of course the Executive Branch maintains that this is all perfectly legal. After all, we're in a time of war. But a war with whom? Mr. Bush declared on May 1, 2003 an end to major combat operations in Iraq, meaning that troops there are essentially on a peacekeeping mission. There's the "War On Terror," I suppose, but again I ask, with whom specifically is this war on? Terror is not a nation or thing, terror is a tool of destruction and a crime. You don't wage war against crimes. You seek to prevent them and if committed, you capture and try those whom you believe are responsible. When fighting crime there are rules that must be observed. It is a constitutional foundation of our American justice system. You don't get to ignore the rules just because they don't suit you.

Mr. Bush knows this. Sadly, like President Nixon, he has come to believe that he is above the law. It is the duty of Congress to remind him otherwise. And it's our job to make sure that they do!

Helping The President Pull His Head Out Of His Greenhouse Gas

2006-06-23T11:28:00.000-04:00

The AP reports that the National Academy of Sciences, a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters, has reported to the House Science Committee that the earth is the hottest it's been in 2,000 years. This runs contrary to the contentions of the Bush Administration who maintain that the global warming threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that they say would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs. In 2001, President Bush pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Accords citing that it excluded poor nations and that emissions caps would harm the U.S. economy. Ironic isn't it. This from an administration that doesn't seem one whit concerned about the growing number of jobs being outsourced to China and India.

I Hate To Put It This Crassly, But Dead People Don't Need Jobs

The United States has really fallen asleep on this issue. While we remain one of the biggest polluters on the planet, emitting 24% of the world's greenhouse gasses (China is second with 12.1%), we have sat on the sidelines and let the rest of the world try to handle it. I am amazed every time I hear someone criticize someone like Al Gore for being an environmental activist. Is it so wrong to not want to breathe in, drink or absorb cancer causing agents? Is it wrong to not want our children and grandchildren to do so?

In A Fight Between Humanity And The Earth, The Earth Is Going To Kick Our Ass!

There's nothing more dangerous than a pissed off mother and, without a doubt, there is compelling evidence that the earth is fighting back against years of abuse by humankind. History has shown that Mr. Bush is usually up for a good fight, whether it makes sense or not, but this is one that he can't win. And contrary to what the President maintains, good environmental policy could just as easily add jobs and improve the economic welfare of the United States. Here's how I see it:

- Renewable technologies require manufacturing. Manufacturing creates good paying jobs.

- Fossil Fuels are a finite resource, renewable fuels are not. Need more soy or corn based fuel? No problem, grow it.
Added benefit? America's farmers get a big boost.

- Decreased pollution leads to decreases in health care costs, through less environmentally triggered diseases (i.e. asthma,
cancer).

It is my hope that this is the beginning of a new understanding between government and the scientific community. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., my Congressperson and chair of the House Science Committee, said, "This report shows the value of Congress handling scientific disputes by asking scientists to give us guidance. There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change." Yep, that's right, my Republican Congressperson gets it.

Let's hope that the rest of Congress gets the message and that they can shove the Executive Branch into gear.

27,000,000 Reasons To Stay In Iraq?

2006-06-20T11:24:00.000-04:00

It's reported by CNN today that the President announced there would be no early withdrawal from Iraq as long as Republicans "run the Congress and occupy the White House." Bold words from a man with an approval rating hovering around 38%. The statement took place at a GOP dinner, where the President helped to raise $27,000,000 for the Republican mid-term cause. He went on to say that, "An early withdrawal would embolden the terrorists."

The true tragedy here is that while the President was blustering to the GOP faithful, two young American soldiers, according to emerging reports in the news today, were being brutally tortured and murdered. Apparently, bombings, firefights, kidnappings and beheadings don't qualify as bold in Mr. Bush's eyes.

Now I have to agree with the President on one thing. PUBLICIZING a timetable for troop withdrawal is a stupid idea. When you're in a fight, you don't give away the game plan. HOWEVER, it is not unreasonable to have an exit strategy and definable benchmarks. The President would have us believe that anyone who dares call for an end to the bloodbath in Iraq is being disrespectful to our soldiers and telling them that their "sacrifices have gone in vain." This from a President who sent troops to Iraq without proper body armor (See Story).

It's Obscene To Use Iraq As A Fundraiser!

It's not as though Mr. Bush is out there selling war bonds to fund the effort, or that the money is going to the widows/widowers and orphans of soldiers who have been killed. Instead he's filling the GOP coffers so that they can hold onto Congress during midterm elections and bring us more of the same. Am I the only one who thinks this is shameful?

If you agree, drop the President a line and let him know that it is wrong to use war as a fundraiser rallying point!

E-mail President Bush

Anti-Flag Burning Amendment? Is This The Best Use Of The Senate's Time?

2006-06-17T16:44:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press reported today that the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to put an Anti-Flag Burning amendment before the full Senate for a vote. The amendment seeks to give to Congress the, "power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." As things currently stand, it is generally interpreted that flag burning is protected under the 1st Amendment.

Don't get me wrong, I do not like to see someone burn a flag.

I recognize my flag as an important symbol of the United States. I get angry when I see protestors burning it elsewhere in the world. But...isn't part of what makes us unique as Americans, the right to express ourselves, non-violently, even if it is in a manner that others find objectionable?

So why now?

Simply put, politics. Again. The Republican Senate, led in large part by Majority Leader, Dr. Bill Frist, is trying to use the approaching 4th of July holiday to whip up election year patriotic fervor. They are hoping that you'll believe that this amendment will somehow strengthen the United States. They are hoping that you'll think, "Damn, the Republicans stepped up to the plate and got it done!"

What They Hope You'll Forget...

They are hoping you'll forget that over 2,500 American troops have lost their lives in Iraq with no end in sight. They are hoping you'll forget that gas is over $3.00 a gallon. They are hoping you'll forget the anguish you saw on television as people lived in their own waste, without food or water, after Hurricane Katrina. They are hoping you'll forget that the President authorized the National Security Agency to conduct wiretapping on Americans without the benefit of a warrant. They are hoping you'll forget that someone in the Bush administration committed treason by leaking the identity of an undercover CIA operative to the media. They are hoping you'll forget a lot of things.

But don't you do it!

Write to your Senator. Express your opinion on flag burning, if you wish, but tell them to get back to work on the real issues that we're facing. There are a lot of them. And no amount of flag burning prevention will solve them!

Perpetuating A Culture Of Fear Hurts Our Children

2006-06-15T16:05:00.000-04:00

It seems that the best thing to come out of Arkansas in a long time was Bill Clinton. It's certainly not a 1999 state law that bans homosexuals from becoming foster parents. The Associated Press reports that the matter is currently before the Arkansas Supreme Court where the state has appealed a 2004 lower court decision that found the law unconstitutional.

Ms. Kathy L. Hall, attorney for the Department of Health and Human Services indicated that the state's utmost concern is the health, safety and welfare of foster children. This is an admirable goal and one that I hope every person reading this shares. However, she then says, "and that can't happen in a home where unmarried sex occurs." Interestingly enough, the State does not ban single heterosexual persons from being foster parents. Ms. Hall when challenged by Justice Annabelle Clinton Imber on the point replied that unlike homosexuals, a single heterosexual parent "has the potential" to find a spouse. So apparently it's o.k. for a child to be in a home where unmarried sex occurs BUT ONLY IF there is a possibility that the foster parent could, at some unknown future time, become married. Glad that she clarified it.

This is what is known as pretzel logic.

Arkansas is trying to have it both ways and the real losers are the children. If the concern is that single people who MAY engage in sex outside of marriage are a bad influence on children, then one of two changes should apply. Either no one who is unmarried should be allowed to have foster children, or gay couples should be allowed to marry in order to role model sex as something that only occurs between adults in a commited and legally sanctioned relationship. Otherwise, the lower court is right, it's discrimination.

So, if we decide that single people who may be having sex outside of marriage, shouldn't for the moral sake of the children, be foster parents, shouldn't we really take it a step further? Shouldn't we terminate the parental rights of divorced people? They might have sex before remarrying. Or how about, God forbid, parents who had children without ever marrying?! If you take what Ms. Hall claims is the spirit of the law to the logical conclusion, Arkansas is going to have more foster children than ever.

It's ridiculous, it's discrimination, and Kathy Hall knows it.

There's a lot more that I could say about this topic. It seems obvious that it is derived from the erroneous belief that homosexuality is a deviant practise and one where someone can become corrupted by exposure to it. There is not one shred of scientific evidence to support such a theory. It may also derive from the belief that homosexuals are more likely to become child molesters. There is no evidence to support this theory either. People who molest children come from both sexual orientations and are classified under a psychiatric disorder known as pedophilia. No evidence suggests that homosexuals are more likely to be pedofiles than heterosexuals.

It's time that we begin to tell our government to focus on the crux of the issue: The fact that there are so many children who need foster homes. Instead of perpetuating a culture of fear, let's instead, put our effort into parental training initiatives, domestic violence prevention programs, and support services for families. These are long term solutions that will cost us a hell of a lot less public dollars in the long run and build stronger, better communities.

Think Kathy Hall and Arkansas are wrong? Why not tell her? E-mail Kathy Hall