Eric Alterman - Iraq is not Vietnam

You have to read this...really. It's right on the money.

Unlike Vietnam, we are beloved by the people we are saving.

Unlike Vietnam, our president and his cabinet officers are leveling with the nation about the costs of victory and likelihood of defeat.

Unlike Vietnam, we have the support of the international community.

Unlike Vietnam, it is particularly popular in the region where the war is being fought, and among the alleged audience abroad we seek to impress with our wisdom and resolve.

Unlike Vietnam, our actions are not inspiring anyone to take up arms against us and thereby increase the level of threat we face.

That is just a small sample. Oddly, I think many neoconservatives feel this is true. Certainly Bush and Co. seem to believe in these ideas, at least to a certain degree.

Sadly, Iraq is becoming a 21st century Vietnam more and more each day.

Now playing "All Because Of You" by Blackmore's Night

(OK, OK...it's a chick song, but it's a good chick song...and a good workout tune...)

Is this happening? Is this fantasy?
Never did I believe
There could be such happiness
Feels like nothing on earth
Starting with one little kiss…
I could stay in this moment forever
I could reach every star in the sky
I could lose myself when I look
Into your eyes…

Is the happening? Is this fantasy?
All my dreams coming true…
…all because of you
I can't believe its true…
…all because of you….

You are everything I
Wanted for so many years…
Goodbye long, lonely nights
Sadness and thousands of tears

I could stay in this moment forever
I could reach every star in the sky
I could lose myself when I look
Into your eyes…

Is this happening? Is this fantasy?
All my dreams coming true…All because of you
I can't believe it's true…all because of you…

The effects of depleted uranium ammunition

I first found this on "Eschaton", which ran an entry on the video linked from "Mandate, My Ass". It's called "Poisonous Legacy", and it gives a graphic portrait of the effects of using depleted uranium as ammunition (which the United States does in many weapons, including armor piercing guns on tanks and anti-missile systems on ships).

WARNING: The video "Poisonous Legacy" linked above is very graphic and has disturbing images. It's validity has also been called into question (see the discussion on "Mandate, My Ass"). However, working in a nuclear industry myself, I can say that quite often things that were initially considered low risk have, after long term study, been found to have effects that were never anticipated nor discovered in relatively short term tests or observations. Could well be the issue here; time will tell. Much of what we know in the nuclear industry about radiation exposure to humans we got not by studying the effects on lab animals, but from the actual exposure to humans in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and our own accidental (and purposeful) exposure to nuclear workers.

the stinging nettle: If it Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

"the stinging nettle" has an intriguing post on Social Security. It's not as bad off as you may think, and Bush's plan to "privatize" it will cost upwards of $2 trillion (yes, trillion) to switch over to a partial investment plan. The administration costs, even by Bush administration estimates, would be significantly higher.

Yet the Congressional Budget Office (a nonpartisan entity) with no changes Social Security will be fine until 2052. With only modest changes in taxes (like rollbacks of the tax cuts on the rich) we could "fix" Social Security nearly indefinately.

So why the push to privatize/partially privatize?

Who knows?

Political Wire: Report Highly Critical of War Effort

Courtesy of Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, we have news that the Defense Department released a report critical of the administration's performance in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How open and honest of them. Critical self-analysis and public accountability at it's best.

Of course, just so they could get the minimum of attention and publicity for this report, they released it late in the afternoon on the day before Thanksgiving.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge resigning

Man, working for Bush must suck. The resignations just keep rolling in.

Though this one wasn't unexpected. Ridge has been hinting about stepping aside for a while, and the job (which he has been praised for from both sides of the aisle) is a stressful one.

But boy oh boy, the cabinet is dropping like flies.

Attorney General John Ashcroft
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Commerce Secretary Don Evans
Education Secretary Rod Paige
Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge
CIA Director George Tenet (not a cabinet position, and an earlier resignation...but a high level resignation all the same)

Anyone left up there in DC?

More Tom DeLay hypocrisy

OK, this is nothing new...but the quote from DeLay really got me.

"At this particular time, our rules could be used against us and so they fixed the rules so that the Democrats cannot use our own rules against us," DeLay said of the rule change that helped him.

So...part of the GOP moral code is to make rules to use against others, but change them when they can be used against them. (Note that this troublesome rule that the GOP did away with is one they came up with to use against the Democrats in 1993, to go after Rep. Dan Rostenkowski).

Values party, indeed.

Greeks file suit on behalf of Alexander the Great...Alexander unable to be reached for comment

A Greek lawyer, who has not even seen the movie "Alexander", is leading a lawsuit over the portrayl of Alexander as bisexual.

The lawyer leading the campaign, Yannis Varnakos, said the impending suit is not an attack against gays, but rather a demand to make the film historically accurate.

"We cannot come out and say that President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay," Varnakos told Reuters.

Uh...nothing holds moviemakers to accuracy, certainly not historical accuracy. What law school did this bozo get his degree from? And as to saying Kennedy was a Lakers guard? Well, it was OK to say he met Forrest Gump.

A coach who stands up for his kids...all the way to the Supreme Court

For Jackson, the disparities between the girls' and boys' teams were immediately apparent after he started work at Ensley High School in 1999.

Besides using an old gym with no heat, the girls sometimes rode to games in teachers' and parents' cars while the boys always used a bus, and the girls' team didn't get any money from ticket or concession sales.

After pushing for changes in letters and meetings with school officials, Jackson said his job evaluations soon got worse, and he was removed as coach in May 2001. He remained on the payroll as a teacher.

Jackson has now challenged the school over a violation of the Title IX law, which protects people from discrimination based on gender. His contention is that is should also protect those who blow the whistle on gender bias, regardless of their gender.

Alabama of course opposes his case (anyone really surprised...Alabama coming down against equality). Several other states side with Alabama on this one (sadly my own state, Hawaii, is in this list).

Opposing Jackson are the National School Boards Association as well as Alabama and eight other states, who fear a wave of lawsuits claiming retaliation that they say Congress never intended.

The eight other states are Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia. They argue in part that Jackson could have sued under the First Amendment or other civil rights laws, but not Title IX.

Jackson is fighting a good fight...both for protection of whistleblowers like him, and for the kids he coaches.

America needs more people in education like Roderick Jackson.

Daily Kos :: Give "marriage" to the churches

Rather, let's shake up tactics. The conservative bigotted position is untennable. It has no basis in fact or reason. Arguments against gay marriage are predicated entirely, 100 percent, on emotion. And the vehicle for those emotional appeals are the word "marriage". A mere semantic.

Or it would be, if government rights and benefits weren't predicated on that single word.

So let's gift the word "marriage" to the churches, grant themexclusive use, and get the government out of the realm of "marriage". That way, churches could define whatever it was they called "marriage" (you know, that thing with a 50 percent success rate), and leave the government to certify legal "unions" -- you know, those things between people who love each other.

That way, the churches could find ways to really save marriage, by figuring out how to keep their flocks from divorcing, cheating and abusing their spouses.

Good common sense, from Daily Kos.

When you think about it, all marriages are twofold...the civil union (legal contract by the state for the legal benefits of marriage) and the religious aspect (some folks skip this, some do it before the civil part, some after, some in conjunction with).

States with legal "civil unions" for gays have in a sense done this (split marriage and civil union) for homosexuals. A full on split in this regard would seem to solve the issue for both sides; give the legal, civil benefits of marriage (death benefit, medical decisions, health care benefits, tax rights) to gay couples and allow religions and conservatives to have the "institution" of marriage for their own defining.

I'd think this would be a palatable compromise for conservatives. The pessismist in me sees many of them, the more rabid, moralizing, bitoted Jerry Falwell types, going all or nothing. Why? Well, consider that 8 of the 11 states in the Nov. 2nd election that decided on gay marriage amendments to their state constitutions also decided against allowing civil unions for gays.

Abu Ghraib wasn't enough...Red Cross finds evidence of torture at Guantanamo Bay, too

This sort of problem seems endemic to our imprisonment of terror suspects. Without charges, and often with a classification of "enemy combatant" that has (thus far) denied them even Geneva Convention rights, the detainees we've held in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have been subject to varying degrees of abuse, up to and including torture. Most memorable is Abu Ghraib, but there have been other lesser-known instances.

It appears, according to a New York Times article, that the Red Cross has found evidence of gross violations of medical ethics and outright torture.

Below is an excerpt from the New York Times article, courtesy of "The Political Forecast":

"The International Committee of the Red Cross has charged in confidential reports to the United States government that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The finding that the handling of prisoners detained and interrogated at Guantánamo amounted to torture came after a visit by a Red Cross inspection team that spent most of last June in Guantánamo.

The team of humanitarian workers, which included experienced medical personnel, also asserted that some doctors and other medical workers at Guantánamo were participating in planning for interrogations, in what the report called "a flagrant violation of medical ethics."

Doctors and medical personnel conveyed information about prisoners' mental health and vulnerabilities to interrogators, the report said, sometimes directly, but usually through a group called the Behavioral Science Consultation Team, or B.S.C.T. The team, known informally as Biscuit, is composed of psychologists and psychological workers who advise the interrogators, the report said.

The United States government, which received the report in July, sharply rejected its charges, administration and military officials said.

The report was distributed to lawyers at the White House, Pentagon and State Department and to the commander of the detention facility at Guantánamo, Gen. Jay W. Hood. The New York Times recently obtained a memorandum, based on the report, that quotes from it in detail and lists its major findings.

It was the first time that the Red Cross, which has been conducting visits to Guantánamo since January 2002, asserted in such strong terms that the treatment of detainees, both physical and psychological, amounted to torture. The report said that another confidential report in January 2003, which has never been disclosed, raised questions of whether "psychological torture" was taking place.

The Red Cross said publicly 13 months ago that the system of keeping detainees indefinitely without allowing them to know their fates was unacceptable and would lead to mental health problems."

Neat, eh? The culture and mindset that allows, encourages, and then covers up and denies this sort of thing is one that puts human rights on a very low rung of the ladder. Is it a dehumanizing, a quest for revenge, or a religious crusade? Or does our government care so little for human rights that it just simply doesn't care how we treat our prisoners?

These actions have many serious consequences, aside from the outright disgusting disregard for basic human rights. Our own prisoners are treated more harshly; while this being the impetus for murder at the hands of terrorists is debatable (likely the terrorists capturing Americans will kill them anyway), it certainly fuels the fires, in a manner of speaking. We can hardly expect our prisoners, be they civilian or military, to be treated with any sort of decency when we do things like this. Our standing in the world as a voice for human rights is nearly nonexistant...as a major world power, something we should be working for is human rights, in fact it was a later justification for the Iraq war. Yet we show ourselves to be little better than the violaters we speak out against.

Those at the highest levels should be held to answer for these actions. Yet in many cases they are instead promoted (or, in the case of "Abu Gonzales", given cabinet appointments).

What message do we send to the world with these actions?

Center for Constitutional Rights Seeks Criminal Investigation In Germany Into Culpability Of U.S. Officials In Abu Ghraib Torture

In a historic effort to hold high-ranking U.S. officials accountable for brutal acts of torture including the widely publicized abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib, on Tuesday November 30, 2004, CCR and four Iraqi citizens will file a criminal complaint with the German Federal Prosecutor’s Office at the Karlsruhe Court, Karlsruhe, Germany. Under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction suspected war criminals may be prosecuted irrespective of where they are located.

The four Iraqis were victims of gruesome crimes including severe beatings, sleep and food deprivation, hooding and sexual abuse. (Further details of the treatment of the complainants will be provided after the filing.)

The U. S. officials charged include Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Former CIA Director George Tenet, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Dr. Steven Cambone, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, Major General Walter Wojdakowski, Major General Geoffrey Miller, Brigadier General Janis L. Karpinski, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry L. Phillabaum, Colonel Thomas Pappas, and Lieutenant Colonel Stephen L. Jordan.

First found on The All Spin Zone. None are above the law, nor should they be.

Colleges can boot recruiters without reprisal

A 1995 law, known as the Solomon Amendment, bars the federal government from disbursing money to colleges and universities that obstruct campus recruiting by the military. As amended and interpreted over the years, the law prohibits disbursements to all parts of a university, including its physics department and medical school, if any of its units, like its law school, make military recruiting even a little more difficult.

Not any more. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia ruled this violates the school's First Amendment rights.

Citing a 2000 decision of the United States Supreme Court that said the Boy Scouts have a First Amendment right to exclude gay scoutmasters, the appeals court said the law schools have a First Amendment right to convey a message opposing discrimination against gays by excluding military recruiters.

The appeals court also said that the presence of military recruiters on campus forces universities to convey a message with which they disagree. That is a form of compelled speech, the court said, prohibited by the First Amendment.

Good on 'em! I for one feel that allowing recruiters on campus shows tacit approval of the military in general, and if the school doesn't feel the military's policies are something they agree with, they should be able to express that without reprisal. They shouldn't be required to tacitly support service in a disagreeable war, discrimination against gays, whatever. If people want to join, they can join on their own, but the school should be able to disagree and not have to condone something they feel is against their philosophy.

Letter to President Bush from a devout follower

(Jane found this on a blog out there in the blogosphere...I thought it was pretty good. Fundamentalists need some clarification from the man "appointed by God" to be our leader.)

Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man and a woman."
I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10 - it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19:27 expressly forbids this. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Required reading for Rep. John Hostettler

Aside from the direct process of changing the Constitution, the practical effect of its provisions may be changed by judicial decision. The United States is a common law country, and courts are obliged to follow the precedents established in prior cases. However, when a Supreme Court decision clarifies the application of a part of the Constitution to existing law, the effect is to establish the meaning of that part for all practical purposes. Not long after adoption of the Constitution, in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review, which is the power of the Court to examine legislation and other acts of Congress and to decide their constitutionality. The doctrine also embraces the power of the Court to explain the meaning of various sections of the Constitution as they apply to particular cases brought before the Court. Since such cases will reflect changing legal, political, economic, and social conditions, this provides a mechanism, in practice, for adjusting the Constitution outside of amendments. Over the years, a series of Court decisions, on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases, has had the effect of modifying what had been previously understood to be the meaning of many Constitutional clauses, with no change in the actual text of the Constitution itself.

Congressional legislation, passed to implement provisions of the Constitution or to adapt those implementations to changing conditions, also broadens and, in subtle ways, changes the meaning of the Constitution. Up to a point, the rules and regulations of the many agencies of the federal government have a similar effect. In case of objection, the test in both cases is whether, in the opinion of the courts, such legislation and rules conform with the meaning of the Constitution.

When you are done, Congressman Hostettler, we can discuss your ill-founded proposed legislation. For now, you have a civics lesson to complete.

Clarification for "tyranny" in same-sex marriage

Furthermore, a republic can be contrived to protect against the "tyranny of the majority." The Federalist Papers outline the idea that pure democracy is actually quite dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a minority. By forming what they called a Republic, in which representatives are chosen in many different ways (the President, House of Representatives, Senate, and state officials are all elected differently), it is more difficult for a majority to control enough of the government to infringe upon a minority.

Or, more simply put, a majority does not give absolute power.

Supreme Court refuses challenge to Massachusetts same-sex marriage ruling

The Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a dispute over same-sex marriages, rejecting a challenge to the nation's only law sanctioning such unions.

Justices had been asked by conservative groups to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. They declined, without comment.

Good for them...in a way. This is a victory for both sides, as the court neither gave merit to the suit to overrule the Massachusetts Supreme Court, nor did it give a definitive answer to the issue.

One interesting quote, that shows the mindset of those against freedom of gays to have equal rights:

Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state supreme court's usurpation of power."

Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."

Tyranny? So now allowing gays to have the same rights and freedoms as everyone eles is tyranny?

Man, the religious right is more whacked out than I thought.

SCOTUS hearing case on medical marijuana

The Supreme Court is deciding a case that could help thousands fend off the pain of major illnesses and medical conditions...use of marijuana. Many states have laws allowing medical use of marijuana, but Federal law still allows legal action against these people.

I'm sure the Federal government feels really high and mighty, going after Angel Raich, who has scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other illnesses. and Diane Monson, who has degenerative spine disease.

The government's arguement?

The Bush administration argues that Congress has found no accepted medical use of marijuana and needs to be able to eradicate drug trafficking and its social harms.

????

Congress? How about doctors?

I sincerely hope the high court rules in favor of these people; our government is small-minded indeed if going after people in excruciating pain is their idea of eradicating "social harms."

A terrorism case that went awry

Read this story. Then realize a) The USA PATRIOT Act is bad, bad, bad, b) this could be you, and c) yes, they can (and do) do this to US citizens, too.

Radical Clerics

The mainstream press, itself in love with the "moral values" story line and traumatized by the visual exaggerations of the red-blue map, is too cowed to challenge the likes of the American Family Association. So are politicians of both parties. It took a British publication, The Economist, to point out that the percentage of American voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern is actually down from 2000 (35 percent) and 1996 (40 percent).

*****

Why are the Democrats not pointing this out? Are they so terrified that a Racist Radical Cleric like Dobson or Fallwell will call them "unchristian" that they can't even point out facts? Let's be clear about this. In 1996, when 40 percent of Americans based their votes on "moral values," they re-elected Bill Clinton. Now that the number of Americans who base their votes on "moral values" has been cut almost in half, they selected George Bush. And this gives the Racist Radical Clerics the ability to force their "religion" down everyone's throats?

Good question...read the rest at Eschaton.

More on Congressman Hostettler, the "good Christian" Indiana congressman

When accepting the award, Rep. Hostettler said the award represented the idea that, in a country founded by Christians, people should live in a way that holds true to the principles set forth by Christ. “I hope to influence others to apply Christian principles to government,” said Hostettler.

Um...doesn't that kinda go against

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Whatever. The Constitution is just another law to disregard, right Congressman Hostettler? If the law gets too troublesome you can always lead the push to defang the courts, too.

Does it seem like I'm giving Congressman Hostettler a lot of press? Yep. See, I want anyone and everyone who reads this to see just what type of people they elected for their Republican majority. People who don't see a separation of church and state. Or a need for a judicial system to provide a check and balance on their power.

Legislators with good 'ol Republican "values" like Congressman Hostettler.

Congressman Hostettler...true Republican values...criminal values

Guess who got caught with a gun at an airport? The gentleman from the 8th District of Indiana, Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN). That, Johnny boy, is a crime.

Maybe that is why the "Christian Statesman of the Year" wants to strip courts of their power...so he can avoid the messy complications of following the law. Kinda like Tom DeLay.

True Republican values...concealed weapons in airports. Removing court power. I can see where the two go hand in hand. :)

Democrat values...sharing the bounty, helping the poor

Vilsack, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, said sharing is an American value rooted in the country's origins when American Indians helped the Pilgrims four centuries ago.

"On that day, sharing became an American value," Vilsack said. "Living up to that value requires us to do what we can, and what we must, to stop hunger in America."

Now that is a value I can get behind. While the Republicans crusade against gays, they forget real American values.

Mathew Gross: The Politics of Victimization

Hmmm...another take on why Dems are on the losing end so much lately. We are playing the victim to their abuser, and (like most victim/abuser relationships) we've yet to stand up and say we're not going to take it.

First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse.

Sounds like a plan...

Lion's Den: Understanding the South

Maybe I've been too hard on the South. Maybe.

This "Lion's Den" post reminded me of some of the things I like/miss about the South (sweet tea ranks high on the list), and raises some interesting points on why Kerry lost the South and how the Democrats can win it in the future.

While I (and others) bash the South something fierce, "Lion's Den" reminds us it's not necessarily a bastion of racism, bigotry, and discrimination (and extremist "religion") that one may think from a look on the surface.

There is racism, bigotry, extremism, and discrimination in the South, to be sure. But there are also many, many good people there, fiercly patriotic Americans who just have a different way of viewing things.

Southern culture places a high premium on speaking simply and directly (without sacrificing manners, of course), and Southerners are, as a rule, extremely distrustful of politicians who speak like, well, politicians. Southerners also are not particularly interested in the minutae of politics, and tend to make gut-level decisions when voting. This is why George W. Bush is able to gain so much traction here, because he is able to sell himself as a plain-spoken everyman. It is also why it is so difficult to dismantle that image, because Southerners aren't generally the type of people to wade into the murky depths of political bullshit to find the truth. Finally, it is the reason that a candidate like John Kerry was hard pressed to gain ground, because he could not shake the perception of him as a Yankee.

Not to be condescending, but the South by and large will vote for John-Boy Walton over Albert Einstein in most cases. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were the plain spoken, well mannered types who could speak to the people and get them to listen.

Democrats need to learn the lesson here. I like an intellectual as much as the next guy, but that intellectual needs to come down to earth (ma'am) to win in the South.

And have some sweet tea while they're at it.

Our three branch government...soon to be two?

There is a balance of power built in to our government, there to keep any one branch from becoming so powerful that it can dominate the other two. Right?

Maybe not, if the GOP has anything to say about it.

One of the rallying cries of the 2004 election was the issue of "activist" judges handing down decisions that the Republicans and their extremist Christian backers didn't like. (If you disagree with the Republicans or the "moral majority" you are branded as either a "liberal" or an "activist", neither of which were bad things in my mind...they have managed to make them both dirty words of late, however.)

The Republicans have a way around that now. Bypass the federal courts.

Reportedly, such leaders as the Rev. Jerry Falwell and Republican Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana, flush with what they see as a successful right-wing revolution, believe they can make the federal courts virtually powerless.

Rep. Hostettler, addressing a special legislative briefing of the Christian Coalition last month in Washington, reportedly talked at length about a bill he plans to introduce. It would deny federal courts the right to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage.

"Congress controls the federal judiciary," Rep. Hostettler was quoted as saying. "If Congress wants to, it can refer all cases to the state courts. Congress can say the federal courts have limited power to enforce their decision."

Apparently, the Hoosier congressman has not heard of the balance of power among the three arms of our government. He was quoted as telling the Christian Coalition members:

"When the courts make unconstitutional decisions, we should not enforce them. Federal courts have no army or navy... The court can opine, decide, talk about, sing, whatever it wants to do. We're not saying they can't do that. At the end of the day, we're saying the court can't enforce its opinions."

This is just the sort of power the Founding Fathers sought to keep out of any one branch of the government. Absolute power. Rep. Hostettler's bill would give the legslative branch near-absolute power (checked only by Presidential approval, and the current administration makes that a rubber stamp). Any law could be passed (beginning with marriage issues, but who knows where they'd stop if that works), and there would be no questioning it...period.

This is why the Supreme Court is...well...the Supreme Court. The right of Americans to challenge any law is paramount to a truly free society. The other way is tyranny.

tyranny

tyr·an·ny [tírr?nee] (plural tyr·an·nies) noun
1.cruel use of power: cruelty and injustice in the exercising of power or authority over others
2.POLITICS oppressive government: oppressive government by one or more people who exercise absolute power cruelly and unjustly
3.POLITICS state ruled by tyrant: a country or state under the power of an oppressive ruler
4.cruel act: an act of cruelty committed by somebody with great power

[14th century. Via French from, ultimately, Greek turannos (see tyrant ).]

Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Any questions? Ask now, before that right is threatened, too.

Failure of the Alabama anti-segregation amendment...more GOP and "Christian" values at work

Daily Kos has the "real reason" why the amendment failed.

[Some say] it was not about race but about taxes. The amendment had two main parts: the removal of the separate-schools language and the removal of a passage -- inserted in the 1950s in an attempt to counter the Brown v. Board of Education ruling against segregated public schools -- that said Alabama's constitution does not guarantee a right to a public education. Leading opponents, such as Alabama Christian Coalition President John Giles, said they did not object to removing the passage about separate schools for "white and colored children." But, employing an argument that was ridiculed by most of the state's newspapers and by legions of legal experts, Giles and others said guaranteeing a right to a public education would have opened a door for "rogue" federal judges to order the state to raise taxes to pay for improvements in its public school system.

So they were against segregation/racism, but not enough that guaranteeing public education to their kids was palatable. Hmmm...

The American Muckraker has a blunter take on it..."red states" are, at their core, racist.

Too harsh? Maybe...but the far right Christian "moral majority" types sure come off that way, especially when they oppose initiatives that would remove racist laws from the books, with nothing more than a flimsy bit of supposed tax law as their arguement against it.

This isn't new, but it's things like this that make me question the values of the "values" party. Did they really prefer life with Jim Crow in charge?

We are a pathetic bunch

A four day weekend...and what did I/we accomplish.

Well, this blog is growing, so big I'm waiting for Google to charge me for storage space :)

Other than that...nada. Zip. Zilch.

Well, I still can't dive (4 weeks out of the water, due to the embolism I suffered a couple of weeks ago).

Had a nasty headache today, so I did pretty much nothing; it's now 6 pm and my biggest accomplishment for the day is a trip to the mini-mart to get TP and milk. Jane has been doing eBay all day, and I don't think she's won a bid yet. Kinsey...TV, dolls, playing with rats. What few times I've been awake have been composed of blogging and reading "The Left Hand of Destiny" (any Star Trek book that centers on Klingons...gotta love).

Dinner beckons.

Report card comments you wish you could use

(From the blog "Dancing like the aurora on a deep, long night")

Gene Pool
Should consider sex change
Too stupid to live
Should move from district
Dresses like a slut/pimp
Needs a bath
Should apply for exchange program
Should skip school more often
Likely to commit a major crime
Needs to keep finger out of body parts
Needs depends
Bitch
Bastard
Should be flogged
Behaves like an animal
Amount of metal from body parts is disrupting school intercom
Needs to stay out of contact with teacher
Should stay off school grounds
Should avoid beans at lunch
Blob
Needs to contain mucus--and not in mouth
Appears to be lost in space
Grade bordering on Mexico
Should be back in jail
Needs to seek out own kind
Keeping Ritalin manufacturer in business
Should not date out of species
Missing or incomplete brain
Continues to be trying
Keeps showing up for class
Who cares
Needs haircut
Needs to spend drug money on tutor
Potty mouth
Needs to stop pimping out sisters
No comment

Good 'ol family values

Girl (16) comes home drunk. Dad (46) says "I'll teach her a lesson" and calls cops. Girl ups the ante by showing cops Dad's stash of guns and crack.

Girl wins.

2000 Texas Republican Party Platform - GOP values in writing

Some of these jewels go a long way in explaining what type of assault our nation is under now. It may be 4 years old, but I'm sure you will recognize some of the ideas here.

Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Congress should be urged to exercise its authority under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution, and should withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

(Let's just get rid of the Supreme Court, eh?)

Right to Keep and Bear Arms – The Party calls upon the Texas Legislature and the United States Congress to repeal any and all laws that infringe upon the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the Unites States Constitution; and to reject the establishment of any mechanism to process, license, record, register or monitor the ownership of guns. We believe it is the responsibility of all gun owners to safely store and operate their firearms.

(Should we then do away with licensing/monitoring of other dangerous items...like automobiles, airplanes, alcohol, drugs?)

Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the Unites States and the concept of the separation of Church and State and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State.

(Is Antonin Scalia from Texas?)

Homosexuality- The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

(Don't be gay in Texas...you've been warned...)

Sex Education – The Party recognizes parental responsibility and authority regarding sex education. We support the requirement that schools teaching sex education must teach directive abstinence until heterosexual marriage with an uninfected person as the only safe and healthy means of preventing sexually transmitted diseases, the spread of AIDS, and pregnancies in unwed students, and is also a way to build strong and lasting relationships. Sex education classes, if conducted, should be separated by sex and must teach that the use of condoms does not make sex safe. We support policies that mandate parents must be notified before any sex education course or program is implemented, and they must be given an opportunity to review the material and give their consent.

(Abstinence...nothing else. Let's not teach kids what may be done to make sex less risky, just teach 'em to avoid it. If they do it...they are on their own.)

We oppose the ideology of multiculturalism that emphasizes differences between racial, ethnic and gender groups leading to a conflict of loyalties and a weakening of a common American identity.

(That one needs no comment.)

To protect the Social Security system, its funds should not be co–mingled or spent with general revenues or invested in private or public corporate stock.

(How did that get in there? Paging President Bush...)

Some of their ideas and goals are admirable. But much is shortsighted, isolationist, xenophobic, and clearly so old-fashioned as to be quaint (if they weren't so regressive).

And that regressive platform is now being instituted on a national level. Read through and see just how much of this is in line with the tone of the GOP government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches).

Anti-gay. Isolationist. Xenophobic. It's OK to them for us to have our bases/troops anywhere in the world, and to do anything in the world we want...but no involvement in a world governing body, and though foreign troops can be subject to our commanders it doesn't work the other way around.

Good for us the United States is rich enough in resources and money that we can go it alone in the world, isn't it? We don't need foreign oil to power our nation or fuel our cars. We don't need foreign money or investment to prop up our budgets; we certainly don't have any debt to any other nation for our budget shortfalls. We are, of course, so powerful that we don't need nor want the aid of anyone else with regards to military matters.

Good for us, isn't it?

Gunman steals Salvation Army kettle

Sad. Very sad.

Is there no bottom below which criminals will not stoop?

Hastert Launches a Partisan Policy

Not enough that House Democrats are barred from helping with major legislation, now Speaker Dennis Hastert has made it a policy to only allow legislation to the floor of the House if it wins approval of a majority of the Republican Congressmen.

So much for bipartisanship. There are two types of legislators in the GOP mindset...Republican and the other people who don't agree with them and thus have no voice at all.

Thankfully the Senate still has the filibuster...for now.

Disturbing tshirt

Pro-military tees? What's "pro-military" about lionizing a Marine who murdered a defenseless prisoner?

The small print says "The God of War hates those who hesitate"; I'm not religious but I don't think the Christian God condones this sort of stuff.

American Family Association: "Shark Tale" promotes gays and accepting gays is wrong

These guys are out there...

In the film, Lenny (a vegetarian shark) catches flak from his father for not being "normal" (shark...vegetarian...I can see the potential for humor here...)

AFA equates this to a promotion of acceptance of homosexuality.

What would be so bad about that? Teaching kids to accept others, regardless of their differences? Sounds admirable to me.

Unlike the AFA.

Nevertheless, this is an animated film intended for children, so Shark Tale has to have a happy ending. This is provided via Oscar, who manages to get father and son together for a face-to-face reconciliation.

"What is your problem?" Oscar demands of Lino. "So your son likes kelp. So his best friend's a fish. So he likes to dress like a dolphin. So what? Everybody loves him, just the way he is. Why can't you?"

What's so bad about that? Well, the AFA says this:

But as Plugged In's Steven Isaac notes, "Had this movie been released 20 years ago, nobody would have been calling attention to this subject." Two decades ago, accepting differences meant accepting a person who might have a different skin color, or be from a different ethnic background.

Such differences are immutable characteristics, however, and not sexual choices. In this respect, Shark Tale comes far too close to taking a bite out of traditional moral and spiritual beliefs.

And that's probably swimming a bit too close to shore for many parents.

To the AFA, accepting differences is OK...as long as they are differences the AFA/religious right approves of. They forget that not too long ago the differences they did not approve of were based on skin color/ethnicity.

Values of the GOP - Sen. Rick Santorum, right-wing nutjob

This is old news, but let's not forget just what the GOP is all about. Sen. Santorum is the third ranking GOP senator in the Senate, and as such has a large voice in Congress and a lot of influence. And he's opposed to, among other things, the right to privacy.

The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that.

"[The] right to privacy…doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution." –Rick Santorum on the right to privacy

He's anti-gay.

“[I have] a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with what I would consider to be acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships . . . if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.” –Rick Santorum on gay sex, AP interview

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.” –Rick Santorum, AP interview

What a guy.

Just another example of the "values" present in the GOP.

GOP hypocrites...some can even draw a line (right in front of Tom DeLay)

Angry moderates like Connecticut Representative Chris Shays pointed out that Republicans adopted the rule in 1993 when they were trying to seize control of the House from Democrats by spotlighting the ethical and legal troubles of the opposition's leaders.

"Now we're starting to act like the very people we defeated," Shays told TIME afterward. Even some of DeLay's ideological soulmates were outraged.

Even the hypocrites can see the hypocrisy.

Fewer exchange students attending U.S. high schools

The reasons put forth in the article are numerous; money, fewer willing host families, misinterpretation of federal education rules, post-9/11 security.

But I have a hunch.

The world views us as a bunch of arrogant shitheads. Who would really want to study here?

Sadly this perception (which, by and large, isn't true) is reinforced by the attitude of our President and his administration. The "ugly American" is more and more true in our foreign policy.

Too bad. But not surprising, unfortunately.

COOL!!

You can get sporks in titanium!

Christmas idea, folks :)

Gas-guzzling SUVs should get tobacco-style warnings: British think tank

Gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles, the increasingly popular all-terrain cars, should be forced to sport labels just like cigarette packs announcing their terrible health and environmental impact, a British think tank said Thursday.

Just like smokers in the European Union buy tobacco marked with "Smoking Kills" and other dire warnings, New Economics Foundation (nef) offered its own slogans for super-stickers which they said should be slapped onto the hoods and sides of cars.

"Global warming kills," "Climate change can seriously damage your health" or even "Driving seriously harms you and others around you" were among the list of warnings proposed by the London-based think tank.

But those wouldn't be allowed on US SUV's, as the current administration doesn't believe in global warming.

Teacher fails kids' exam

Looks like Japan needs a "No Teacher Left Behind" program :)

Santa Banned From Skydiving by Disneyland

That's our Department of Homeland Security, making sure al Qaeda doesn't remove Mickey Mouse from our nation.

No word on the Mickey Mouse in the White House...

Now playing "Spread a Little Aloha" by The Mana`o Company

A-L-O-H-A...

...i ka lei
o ke aloha ai,
e makana `ia,
e na lima pono e...

People are you listenin' to what we're about to say?
We are on a mission, tryin' to find a way.
If you and me make a guarantee,
to spread a little aloha around the world.
And I know we, we can work it out,
and make this world a better place. (For you and for me.)

A-L-O-H-A, a little aloha in our day —
spread a little aloha around the world.
A-L-O-H-A, a little aloha in our day —
spread a little aloha around the world.

Could you imagine all around the world,
A little aloha in every boy and girl?
Could you imagine how simple life could be,
with a little aloha in you and me?

Let's spread a little bit of aloha,
put a little love in your heart,
take a little dip in the ocean.
Ah yeah (ah yeah), uh-huh (uh-huh).

(Sing it.) A-L-O-H-A, a little aloha in our day —
spread a little aloha around the world.
A-L-O-H-A, a little aloha in our day —
spread a little aloha around the world.

Aloha means hello, and aloha means goodbye,
and aloha means I love you, and I want to take it higher.
(I want to get high) With a little aloha...
(I can touch the sky) With a little aloha... aloha.

Let's spread a little bit of aloha,
put a little love in your heart,
take a little dip in the ocean.
Ah yeah (ah yeah), uh-huh (uh-huh).

(Sing it.) A-L-O-H-A, a little aloha in our day —
spread a little aloha around the world.
A-L-O-H-A, a little aloha in our day —
spread a little aloha around the world.

Eschaton - The Red-Blue Trap

As someone who has blasted the "red states" for reelecting Bush, this article was a bit of a chastisement. But it makes a good point:

It isn’t smart. If liberals want to win in national elections, we should stop gratuitously insulting potential allies simply on the basis of where they live. Put another way, if you thought you felt isolated and alienated from the rest of the country sitting in your blue state on November 3rd, how do you think liberals in Alabama felt? Even in Oklahoma, one of the few “all red” states where Bush won every county, has Alex still fighting the good fight. He should be supported, not insulted. We frankly need more like him. There are liberals all over the country, even in "authentic" places sitting in the middle of the country. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Good point...damn good point. Here's another:

It’s falling into their trap. The red state-blue state divide "discovered" after the 2004 elections is nothing more than a rebranding of David Brooks’ Bobos in Paradise argument that there are two competing and incompatible cultures in America today. But when a reporter tried to verify the facts underlying Brooks’ thesis they didn’t check out. The post-2004 election version of the "Bobo" theory is on just as flimsy grounds.

The modern conservative movement sells itself as “a revolt of the little people against a high and mighty liberal elite.”. It feeds on a feeling of victimization and resentment that many "red staters" feel right now. And the ability of the right to play into that feeling of victimization rests on the premise of a divided america: us versus them, red versus blue. There is no reason we have to adopt their framework. It only works to the conservatives' advantage anyway.

The right won this one on a "moral divide" in many areas. So, while "red state" bashing is fun, it's counterproductive. I'd not suggest "remaking" the left to match the right...not by a long shot. Rather, as I've said before, if we want to represent America we have to show America that we a) have morals & values (since somehow the perception following this election is that only the 51% who voted Bush have "moral values"), and b) those morals and values are not only not incompatible with theirs, they are right in line with them (and they are good American values).

Alienating the "reds" won't help. Convincing them of the error of their ways...might.

Audit: Halliburton lost track of property

Link says it all. I suggest looking for the resultant profits in Dick Cheney's bank accounts...

Hall of Fame - Political Donations of the Rich, Famous, & Powerful

Wonder if your favorite celeb, writer, rich person, athlete shares your political views? The contributions tell the tale.

Scalia says religion infuses U.S. government and history

Scary thought, a Supreme Court justice who doesn't think religion and government should be seperate. So much for the First Amendment.

Religious Conservatives Demand Changes at Nation's Parks

"They felt that there was a political effort to rewrite history, to edit out gays, feminists, war protesters," said Jeffrey Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit group.

That's how revisionist history starts, boys and girls.

Park bookstores at the Grand Canyon now sell the book "Grand Canyon: A
Different View," which contradicts science, saying the Grand Canyon was formed
by the great flood from the Bible story of Noah.

The book was written by a "born again" river guide who writes that his view of the canyon's being millions of years old changed after he "met the Lord. Now, I have 'a different view' of the Canyon, which, according to a biblical time scale, can't possibly be more than about a few thousand years old."

Huh? A few thousand? Isn't there proof out there that this assertation is, well, bullshit?

"During the Clinton administration, it's like we felt like we lived in outer
Siberia," Sheldon said, "and [during] this past administration, it's like we
died and went to heaven and got a preview of what's to come."

It's often said that history is written by the winners. Some of these
conservatives — with the November elections in mind — hope that will be the
case.

Yep, the true colors of the moral majority/religious right/nutjob crew comes through.

Kinsey, showing that she's mastered MS Paint :)

British cop accused of speeding by motorist he booked for same offense

I don't blame this guy one bit...I got pulled over several months ago for failing to signal a lane change, and when the cop left after writing me a $102 ticket, he crossed three lanes of traffic (no emergency) without signaling.

Friggin' hypocrites!

Then there are the ones who flash the blues to blow through red lights (again, no emergency...they turn them off once through the intersection).

Too bad us scrub citizens can't write 'em a citation :)

The United Soviet Socialist States?

Bush's new cabinet...yes-men who more closely resemble Brezhnev's Politburo? Eric Alterman seems to see parallels...

Congress Seeks to Curb International Court

In yet another stroke of outright hypocrisy, Congress is making good on an earlier bill that allows them to cut aid to nations that refuse to sign an "American exemption" to the International Criminal Court.

Seems there is justice, and then there is American justice. We expect other countries to abide by the Geneva Conventions when they hold our personnel, yet we fail to do the same. Now we are expecting other nations to ignore the ICC when it comes to US personnel.

As a servicemember, I think this is a dangerous move...if we hold ourselves arrogantly above the law, we invite mistreatment of our troops by their captors (who will follow the example we set...)

Touching Thanksgiving story (and thanks to our troops, for serving so well in these contentious times)

If the troops can't be home for the holiday, Mom will bring the turkey and trimmings to the troops.

Yvette Boulton, you are a real hero.

More Thanksgiving thoughts

Figures...there is a Thanksgiving.com out there :)

We had a great meal, Jane once again showed her cooking skill with an outstanding turkey, mashed potatoes and gravy, and stuffing. Yep, traditional :) It's true, too, that there is some chemical in turkey that makes you drowsy after eating it. :)

Called the family, all are doing well. Dad and Sharron are still doing some cleanup after the five hurricanes that hit Florida, but thankfully the damage was minimal (they are fairly far north, so missed the brunt of most of them). Grandma Louise is quite well for 94 years old, she did have a slight stumble and a minor sprain in her ankle/leg which is healing slowly, but nothing too serious. Knowing her, she's counting the days until the next Reno trip :)

For all my seeming negativity with our nation's situation and the election, I'm thankful for a great many things. I have a nice home, a wonderful wife and daughter, good pay, health and healthcare, and a good living. There are many who are much less fortunate, and for them I wish for a better tomorrow.

To all of you in the "blogosphere", despite our differences, Happy Thankgiving. Even you "red state" voters and folks in the South...despite my harsh words in previous posts, I still consider you countrymen and fellow Americans. And wish all of you the best (just not in future elections :)

Happy Thanksgiving!

What I have to be thankful for:

1. Jane
2. Kinsey
3. Living in Hawaii
4. Owning a home (well, a mortgage :)
5. Good Hawaii weather
6. Steady, good paying job (US Navy)
7. My health
8. Living in a "blue state", and one that is pretty liberal
9. Bush cannot run again in 2008
10. Democrats have enough Senate seats to filibuster extreme GOP measures
11. The existance of Canada (if the US gets too bad :)
12. I only have 2 1/2 years left in the Navy
13. I have a good job awaiting when I get out of the Navy
14. Half the nation is not made up of right wing nutjobs
15. John Ashcroft is no longer the Attorney General

My Moral Values

What are your moral values? Everyone was a values voter, it's just that some of us value different things.

Tolerance for all.
Equal rights for all.
Civil liberties (laws only to protect people from harm)
Open elections, with full accountability (no "black box" voting)
Universal health care.
War only as an absolute last resort, and only when there is a threat ot our lives or freedoms.
No mistreatment of people, no violations of human rights, even if they are the "enemy".
Fiscal responsibility, because it is immoral to set our future generations up for disaster with huge debts and no way to pay.

Those are some of mine. What are yours?

Kids, there is no such thing as sex...

...at least not until you are an adult and married (to someone of the opposite sex, of course).

That's what the Bush Administration wants you to think.

The president has been a strong proponent of school-based sexual education that focuses on abstinence, but does not include instruction on safe sex.

"We don't need a study, if I remember my biology correctly, to show us that those people who are sexually abstinent have a zero chance of becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted disease," said Wade Horn, the assistant secretary of Health and Human Services in charge of federal abstinence funding.

Stupid crimes

1975. A married couple of thieves went to court when they could not agree on how to split what they had stolen before. The court put them both in jail.

That would be something Jane and I would end up doing...fighting over the loot.

Now only Bush can stop the neocons' wars

Wisdom from, of all places, a conservative columnist. Pat Buchanan has some things to say about the war and Bush's second term:

What is happening in Washington today is that those who were skeptical of the Iraq war and warned the White House against going in are being purged. And those who assured President Bush it would be a cakewalk, that we would be welcomed with flowers and not suicide bombers, that democracy would take root in Iraq and spread through the region, that he would be the Churchill of his generation, are being promoted. Those who were wrong are being advanced, and those who were right are being dismissed.

This appears politically unjust, but it is in a way healthy. For, should Iraq turn out to be a triumph, the war party will have been proven right -- and deserve whatever credit there is. But should Iraq collapse in chaos and civil war, and be judged to have been an act of imperial hubris and historic folly, they will now be held fully accountable. All the scapegoats are gone. We have political clarity.

Thus, a prediction: As neoconservatives in the war Cabinet push impatiently for more troops in Iraq, for strikes on Iran, for military confrontation with North Korea, the restraining force, no longer Colin Powell or the CIA, will be George W. Bush.

With neoconservatives even more zealously committed than he to the ``Bush doctrine'' of pre-emptive strikes and preventive war on ``axis of evil' nations seeking weapons of mass destruction, and using U.S. power to effect regime change on defiant nations, only Bush can now prevent them from realizing their vision.

Prediction: Early in the second term, the neocons are going to be thrown into a cold shower by President Bush, or we are headed for wars without end, until bankruptcy beckons.

That last line is, oddly enough, what Osama bin Laden holds as a goal. Bankrupting the US.

I hope Buchanan is right about the neocons being thrown into a cold shower, as the alternative is much worse.

Foreign aid subject to parking fine deductions

Now this is an example of some good legislation!

Frustrated by deadbeat foreign diplomats, the U.S. Congress has voted to cut aid to their countries by about the sum they owe in unpaid parking tickets.

At the urging of New York lawmakers, Congress tucked the measure -- to cut aid to countries next year by 110 percent of the amount their diplomats owe in parking tickets and penalties -- into the huge $388 billion spending bill lawmakers approved over the weekend.

It makes sense...and naturally it was added by a Democrat.

More on the mental health screening of our children

"Soviet communists attempted to paint all opposition to the state as mental illness. It now seems our own federal government wants to create a therapeutic nanny state, beginning with schoolchildren. It's not hard to imagine a time 20 or 30 years from now when government psychiatrists stigmatize children whose religious, social, or political values do not comport with those of the politically correct, secular state.

American parents must do everything they can to remain responsible for their children's well-being. If we allow government to become intimately involved with our children's minds and bodies, we will have lost the final vestiges of parental authority. Strong families are the last line of defense against an overreaching bureaucratic state."

This really, really scares me. This followup article has much more information, and some background. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) tried to get some parental consent language put into this, but it failed. The big drug companies are pushing this, and (once again) a Texas program is being held up as the model.

The implications of this are scary. Imagine a future where kids who speak out about issues in schools are sent for screening, deemed to have "problems", and thus discredited and marginalized for life? Sounds a bit "Big Brother"ish, like I'm being a reactionary or doing a "sky is falling" routine...until you consider that this is just what totalitarian regimes like the former Soviet Union tried to do.

Could be that this is a benign idea, but the potential for abuse in a system like this is frightening. Your child, in high school, speaks out about her right to wear a tshirt with a political statement (say against a war, or supportive of an alternative lifestyle). Many kids do this now, and we've seen the issues it raises. But in a future where the mental screening is in place, kids with "out of the box" ideas like that could be evaluated and labeled as "mentally ill". Original or opposing ideas would effectively be able to be snuffed at their inception ("your child has been diagnosed with adjustment disorder, since he thinks that man evolved from monkeys...that's just a crazy notion, since we all know God created us, right?")

This sort of legislation is wrong on more levels than I can count.

No Child Left Unmedicated.

A conservative article I can get on board with.

Like most liberal big-spending ideas, this one was slipped into the law under cover of soft semantics. Its genesis was the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (NFCMH) created by President George W. Bush in 2002.

The NFCMH recommends "routine and comprehensive" testing and mental health screening for every child in America, including preschoolers. President Bush has instructed 25 federal agencies to develop a plan to implement the Commission's recommendations.

We can't get the administration/Congress to fund education, to provide universal health care, but mental screening for children? That's a priority? What a stupid idea...in an area where misdiagnosis is rampant, we want to stick kids with likely inaccurate labels for life? How is this supposed to help them? How is it supposed to help parents, who probably can't afford the treatments or medications?

Mental health diagnoses are inherently subjective and social constructions, as even the diagnostic manuals admit. Many thousands if not millions of children would receive stigmatizing diagnoses that would follow them for the rest of their lives.

"State-of-the-art treatments" will result in many thousands of children being medicated by expensive, ineffective, and dangerous drugs. The long-term safety and effectiveness of psychiatric medications on children have never been proven.

The side effects of suggested medications in children are severe. They include suicide, violence, psychosis, cardiac toxicity, and growth suppression. Several school shooters, such as Eric Harris (Columbine) and Kip Kinkel (Oregon) had been on antidepressants or stimulants when they committed their crimes.

Wonder if the "experts" shared these little tidbits with the government?

Parental rights are unclear or non-existent under these mental screening programs. What are the rights of youth and parents to refuse or opt out of mental screening?

Will they face coercion and threats of removal from school, or child neglect charges, if they refuse privacy-invading interrogations or unproved medications? How will a child remove a stigmatizing label from his records?

A Columbia University pilot project of screening students called TeenScreen resulted in one-third being flagged as "positive" for mental health problems, and half of those being turned over for mental health treatment. If this is preview of what would happen when 52 million public school students are screened, it would mean hanging a libelous label on 17 million American children and putting 8 million children into the hands of the psychiatric/pharmaceutical industry.

The only motivation I can see for this is in that last sentance...big pharmaceutical industry clamoring for more money. And Bush in bet with them.

Arctic nations agree to fight glacial melting...but avoid global warming topic so as not to offend Bush administration

Eight nations with Arctic territory agreed yesterday to fight glacial melting and other effects of climate change in the region, though they declined to endorse any new steps to counter global warming out of deference to the Bush administration.

How damn silly is that? "We agree we should really do something about this climate change problem, but we won't speak of global warming. It's the real problem, but the US will get upset if we say so."

Another reason to be thankful...that Bush cannot run for reelection in 2008.

More dubious "wisdom" from Rev. Nutjob Falwell

"...restoring America to the her original Judeo-Christian ethic as "One Nation Under God."

???

This article can disabuse Falwell of his notion that the founding fathers had a Christian nation in mind. So can the First Amendment.

And that "original Judeo-Christian" bit with the "one nation under God"...the "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.

Falwell is a blithering idiot, but an opportunist...he sees this surge of "values voters" as a golden opportunity to make over the US in his image. If he's successful, we all better start learning the Bible, as he and the religion backed wing of the GOP will have it codified into law.

We've got a lot of room to talk...(cartoon by Corky Trinidad of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin)

Keeping the pork in "pork barrel" legislation

The huge $338 billion spending package passed by Congress last week included a healthy serving of Thanksgiving pork. Special interest and "appease the home voters" stuff in spending bills is nothing new, but with record deficits and a national debt so high as to be uncountable you'd think trimming the fat would be high priority.

Apparently not. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an outspoken critic of pork barrel legislation, was moved to say this in response to funding for a "Wild American Shrimp Initiative":

"Why does the U.S. taxpayer need to fund this `no shrimp left behind' act?"

Other budgetary bacon:

The spending plan awaiting President Bush signature is packed with them, doling out $4 million for an Alabama fertilizer development center, $1 million each for a Norwegian American Foundation in Seattle and a "Wild American Shrimp Initiative," and more, much more.

Among items in the package: $335,000 to protect North Dakota's sunflowers from blackbirds, $2.3 million for an animal waste management research lab in Bowling Green, Ky., $50,000 to control wild hogs in Missouri, and $443,000 to develop salmon-fortified baby food.

Now that is literally pork barrel spending.

Army going back further and further in callups

Still think we won't have a draft? From calling up 53-year-old Vietnam vets to the Army National Guard not meeting recruiting goals, the handwriting is on the wall.

If you are between 18 and 25 (34 if the Selective Service gets it's way) you should start preparing now. Oh, that's both men and women.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Oklahoma...the wild, wild west...

Wow...the people who thought Oklahoma's new state law allowing you to keep guns in your car at work must never have heard of crime or workplace violence.

Can't imagine how they couldn't have...it's only been in the news for the last several years.

Falwell's Thanksgiving message (or, more uneducated bigot-spew)...

We see just what the head of the "Faith and Values Coalition" values...hint, it's not truth or accuracy in news (quite the opposite, and far to the right of center).

Powell: 'Fraud and abuse' in Ukraine vote

Given the 2000 and 2004 elections in the United States, we are hardly in a position to criticize.

Oh, wait...the incumbent here won, so he can assume the "high road"...

Microsoft gives press a screenshot of new MSN Search...using Firefox

:) Microsoft doesn't even use their own browser. Must be worried about security.

Creepy billboard

On my way to work Wednesday morning, I looked up and saw a giant billboard with a picture of George W. Bush and the words "OUR LEADER" under it. The first thing I thought was, when was the last time I have seen a president on a billboard? What is going on? Didn't Saddam Hussein have his picture up everywhere? What next, a statue?

Kinda creepy, isn't it? The only places I've ever been in my travels where the nation's leader is on billboards/signs/posters are places in the Third World and Middle East.

Makes you wonder...

Camera jammer...

Celebrities hounded by paparazzi may at last be able to emerge from behind their dark glasses without trepidation.
By wearing a specially designed electronic badge that jams electronic cameras, they will be able to prevent photographers from taking unwanted pictures.

The “privacy protection system” being developed by Hewlett-Packard will allow the publicity-shy to transmit an infrared signal to any nearby compatible camera. Once activated, the camera’s software will automatically blur beyond recognition the face of anybody wearing the badge, New Scientist magazine reports.

Wonder if it makes your face look like they did in "The Ring"?

Now playing "Hawai'i 78 Introduction" by Israel Kamakawiwo'ole

I don't have the lyrics for this one, though it's partly the same as "Hawai'i 78"...however here Iz talks about his father's death and other aspects of his life along with the music. Also from the album "Facing Future".

Amazon has 161 reviews of "Facing Future"...three reviews give it a 3 star rating, one gives it 1 star...the remaining 157 are 5 stars and a half dozen four stars. This from a broad range of people across the nation, not just Hawai'ian. Had Iz lived past 38, he may well have brought Hawai'ian music to the mainstream like Garth Brooks did for country's revival.

Aloha, Bruddah Iz.

'Virgin Mary' toast fetches $28,000

eBay sure seems to bring out the bozo gene in people. $28,000 for a half eaten 10 year old grilled cheese sandwich with a supposed image of the Virgin Mary.

I've got some toenails that look like Confucious. Those should fetch at least $10,000 or so. Bidding starts in a week...

Rich retired northerners like to spend winter in Florida...in other news, water is wet...

A new study shows the state is home to 920,000 ''snowbirds,'' seasonal residents who flock to Florida during winter. They are usually from New York, over 55, and wealthier than retirees who reside in Florida year-round.

Um...duh. Whomever did this study wasted some time. Wonder if it was government funded?

Rumsfeld supports intelligence reform (um...sure)

"Without question, I favor reform of the intelligence community, as the president does, and I have a feeling that they're [Congress] close."

He also denied that he was lobbying in private against the reform bill.

Ummm...yeah, right.

Sorry, I don't trust Rummy as far as I could throw the Pentagon.

FactCheck Subscribers Find Them Clear, Unbiased, Reliable and Useful

The most interesting statistic in FactCheck.org's subscriber survey was near the end.

More than 80% of FactCheck subscribers who worked in some capacity in a campaign were Kerry campaigners. Most FactCheck subscribers identified themselves as Democrats. And the poll showed that an overwhelming majority of all subscribers felt FactCheck was accurate, truthful, and unbiased.

Tells me which side is more interested in the truth.

Liberals, be proud

"If your workplace is safe; if your children go to school rather than being forced into labor; if you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights -- you can thank liberals. If your food is not poisoned and your water is drinkable -- you can thank liberals. If your parents are eligible for Medicare and Social Security, so they can grow old in dignity without bankrupting your family -- you can thank liberals. If our rivers are getting cleaner and our air isn't black with pollution; if our wilderness is protected and our countryside is still green -- you can thank liberals. If people of all races can share the same public facilities; if everyone has the right to vote; if couples fall in love and marry regardless of race; if we have finally begun to transcend a segregated society -- you can thank liberals. Progressive innovations like those and so many others were achieved by long, difficult struggles against entrenched power. What defined conservatism, and conservatives, was their opposition to every one of those advances …" — Joe Conason, Salon

Many Who Voted for 'Values' Still Like Their Television Sin

So if it is true that the public's electoral choices are a cry for more morally driven programming, the network executives ask, why are so many people, even in the markets surrounding the Bush bastions Atlanta and Salt Lake City, watching a sex-drenched television drama?

Good question. I'll sum it up in one word for you.

Hypocrisy.

Jerry Falwell, leader of the Moron Majority

I'd always heard that Rev. Jerry Falwell was an extemist...but boy, I never really realized to what extent.

And we're going to invite PETA [to "Wild Game Night"] as our special guest, P-E-T-A -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. We want you to come, we're going to give you a top seat there, so you can sit there and suffer. This is one of my special groups, another one's the ACLU, another is the NOW -- the National Order of Witches [sic]. We've got -- I've got a lot of special groups.

FALWELL: Up until this generation with the influence of the American Civil Liberties Union and anti-Christ groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State --

COLMES: Oh "anti," that's not true, Reverend. They're not "anti-Christ."

FALWELL: It is true. I know those guys and the fact is they're so anti-religious, anti-Christian that they have tried to secularize the country.

(Guess Rev. Falwell didn't get the memo on the Constitution/Bill of Rights being ratified.)

And for a little historical perspective:

Calling NOW the "National Order of Witches" was far from Falwell's first expression of his opposition to feminists. Falwell mobilized opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment through his organization The Moral Majority (founded in 1979 and disbanded in 1989). In 1989, Falwell stated:

I listen to feminists and all these radical gals ... These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it, and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men; that's their problem.

Hear that, ladies...according to the good Reverand, all you need is a man to tell you what to do.

Falwell even lies outright when it suits his purpose:

From the November 14 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal:

FALWELL: Hillary is committed, clearly, she has a distaste for, she and her husband, at one point said, he did, we, I abhor the military. And I -- you know, Bill Clinton could have been as conservative as Ronald Reagan. I don't think he has an ideology. I think he's an opportunist, and a great leader and a great politician, but no real values system. Not so with Hillary. She is clearly an ideologue, she is clearly a socialist, she is clearly to the left even of John Kerry, and that's bad. And very frankly, I think she'd ruin America.

What was actually said by Clinton was:

Clinton never said, "I abhor the military." Here's what he did write in a December 3, 1969, letter to Holmes:

I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give.

No where in there did Clinton say he "abhors the military"; in the context of 1969 (Vietnam) he was explaining how people could be patriots ("loving their country") but protest Vietnam and not desire to serve ("loathing the military").

In short, Falwell is a blithering idiot. But in a "values voter" sort of way. This is the sort of guy the far right religious "Moral Majority" people put up on a pedestal. The "values voters" would probably have elected this nutjob President if he had run.

Woman cuts off baby daughter's arms

What is wrong with people?

Dena Schlosser, in an horrible act apparently born out of postpartum depression, cut off both arms of her 11-month-old daughter.

This follows closely behind Andrea Yates, who killed her five children (and, chillingly, laid four of them out on a bed, beneath a sheet), and calmly called her husband at work, telling him "You need to come home. It's time. I did it."

Sadly, that isn't all from the Houston area.

What is with these people?

Dan Rather steps down

I'm not really surprised. Though I'm very much against the Bush presidency, the "Memogate" issue was just sad. Journalism at it's worst. I fully expected Dan Rather to step down before the end of the year.

As a journalist he should have known better; but journalism has turned into a partisan circus. Jon Stewart pegged it when he blasted CNN's "Crossfire" team, labeling them as little more than entertainers (Stewart's own "Daily Show" probably has more journalistic integrity).

In fact, quite appropriately in my opinion, CNN filed this story on Rather's retirement under "Entertainment".

Canada...Indict Bush??

Under their law, they could. I'm of two minds on this...while I don't like the idea of a foreign nation putting our head of state up on charges, it's a sad fact that the United States has pretty much ignored international law (Geneva Conventions, with regards to Abu Ghraib) and international legal precedent (Allied tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo following WWII).

The current leadership of the United States sneers at the UN and seems by it's actions to hold itself above international law and the UN. Bush says he wouldn't/shouldn't give other nations say in our security. But just what purpose do international law and the UN serve if not to provide some measure of the rule of law in the world community?

And the "enemy combatant" ruling?

Then there is Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. says detainees there do not fall under the Geneva accords. That's an old argument.

In 1946, Japanese defendants explained their mistreatment of prisoners of war by noting that their country had never signed any of the Geneva Conventions. The Japanese were convicted anyway.

Might explain the United States' reluctance to join in the International Criminal Court.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating Bush's arrest/indictment/prosecution. I am merely pointing out where there could be a case for it in some nations eyes. We've not comported ourselves well in the Iraq war, or with the treatment/classification of prisoners. The legal interpretations by White House counsel (now Attorney General nominee) Alberto Gonzales point to a realization that our leaders could be on shaky ground with our planned actions, so talk of the possible consequences of those actions is inevitable.

More on Michael Scheuer's assessment of Osama bin Laden

Allow me to clarify a couple of things, too (some reflection poolside provided perspective):

The tone of some of Scheuer's remarks (not in this interview, but here) seems to laud bin Laden for his "admirable" qualities. I'll grant you that bin Laden is a very intelligent and clever man; his financial skill is considerable. He has not only masterminded some of the most damaging terrorist attacks (from not only a death/destruction standpoint but a psychological standpoint as well), he's evaded capture and a determined effort to kill him.

I'd never label bin Laden as "admirable"...however brilliant he may be, I still class him in the "monster" category. I personally think we screwed up in the worst possible way in invading Iraq...this is something bin Laden likely foresaw, or at least had contingency plans for, as it plays right into his lap in terms of bringing him tons of recruits who put aside their differences to join up with him. But going after bin Laden was/still is necessary. I do wonder, though, if given our actions/policies in the Middle East we will ever see an end to this conflict.

We (the United States) took years to make this bed...years of poking our noses in the Middle East and creating a tidal wave of resentment. We now will have to lie in it for a long time to come.

bin Laden Expert Steps Forward

An online group I am a member of asked for comment on the CBS article linked above. So here goes:

Scheuer wanted to level the entire camp. "The world is lousy with Arab princes," says Scheuer. "And if we could have got Osama bin Laden, and saved at some point down the road 3,000 American lives, a few less Arab princes would have been OK in my book.

"You couldn't have done this without killing an Arab prince," asks Kroft.

"Probably not. Sister Virginia used to say, 'You'll be known by the company you keep.' That if those princes were out there eating goat with Osama bin Laden, then maybe they were there for nefarious reasons. But nonetheless, they would have been the price of battle."

And that doesn't bother him? "Not a lick," says Scheuer.

Wow...my first impression is that this sort of thing would have sparked off a big bag of bad feeling with Saudi Arabia. While a preemptive strike on bin Laden may well have headed off 9/11, this attack Scheuer advocates, which would have predated 9/11 and been viewed by many in the Arab world as unprovoked, could well have set off a firestorm. Add to that the death of several Saudi princes at the hands of the US, and you've got a terrorist powderkeg that a match would have just been lit to.

Now how does that weigh against the 3000+ lives lost on 9/11? I guess that is why I'm not a general or a president, as I can't make a decision like that. While even before 9/11 bin Laden was a known enemy of the US (attacks on the USS COLE and the World Trade Center in 1993 were carried out by al Qaeda), a "kill 'em all" mentality is just the sort of thinking that leads to atrocity down the road.

I'm not a counterterrorism expert by any means, but it seems that if we knew where he was well enough to engineer a missile strike then a special ops mission to go in and get him would be feasible, too.

"The war in Iraq - if Osama was a Christian - it's the Christmas present he never would have expected," says Scheuer.

Right or wrong, he says Muslims are beginning to view the United States as a colonial power with Israel as its surrogate, and with a military presence in three of the holiest places in Islam: the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. And he says it is time to review and debate American policy in the region, even our relationship with Israel.

"No one wants to abandon the Israelis. But I think the perception is, and I think it's probably an accurate perception, that the tail is leading the dog - that we are giving the Israelis carte blanche ability to exercise whatever they want to do in their area," says Scheuer. "And if that's what the American people want, then that's
what the policy should be, of course. But the idea that anything in the United States is too sensitive to discuss or too dangerous to discuss is really, I think, absurd."

Interesting assessment. It's been taboo in the US to even consider that our actions in the Middle East have brought about the type of hatred that fuels terrorists against us. Scheuer hits a good point here about it being "too sensitive to discuss or too dangerous to discuss"; in the 9/11 aftermath, anyone who suggested that our own policies may have been the trigger was treated like someone who suggests a rape victim "deserved" it due to provactive dress. That isn't the point; a rape victim does not deserve their assault regardless of how they are dressed, but one can see how it could be a contributing factor...likewise with US policy in the Middle East and the resultant feelings it brings about in extremists and terrorists.

Did the 3000+ people on 9/11 (or any people in any terrorist attack) "deserve" do die? NO! But can one see where our actions in the Middle East could draw these things to us? Certainly; a rethinking of our policies with regards to the Middle East is long overdue.

"He secured from a Saudi sheik named Hamid bin Fahd a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans. Specifically, nuclear weapons," says Scheuer. "And the treatise found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans."

If that doesn't worry you...well, it probably should. And it shows that beating terrorists in a military sense just isn't going to work; it's an ideology, a mindset, a hatred so intense that just killing/capturing them isn't going to stop the cycle. Instead, every setback, every death/capture of one of their brothers-in-arms further fuels their loyalty to the cause. We have to learn why this hatred of
us is so entrenched, and learn from it; learn better how to get on in the world without generating enemies at every front.

He blames Sept. 11 on poor leadership from people like former CIA Director George Tenet, his chief deputy, Jim Pavitt, and former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who were invited, but declined, to appear on Sunday's 60 Minutes.

And poor leadership up to and including the President, who ignored the puzzle pieces that where there for him to put together. His further poor leadership took us from ignoring intel on al Qaeda that could have well prevented a major attack like 9/11 to treating the intel on Iraq with a knee-jerk reaction that led to precipitious action against a non-existant threat. One extreme to the other (negligence to hasty reaction)...or (as I'm inclined to give credence to) maybe the Iraq "intelligence" was just what an Iraq obsessed Bush administration wanted for justification. Either way, our war in Iraq was the wrong war. We are stuck now making it right, as is our obligation to the people of Iraq; we owe them a stable nation now that we've gone in half-cocked and destabilized it.

Does he respect bin Laden? "Until we respect him, we are going to die in numbers that are probably unnecessary," says Scheuer.

Sun Tzu said you must know your enemy to defeat him. And respect his capability to truly understand him (OK, that last part was me, not Sun Tzu...)