"...defeat them abroad before they attack us at home..."

Yesterdays bombings in London gave the lie to that premise. Rather than acting as "flypaper", Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists which is second to none. It exceeds the wildest wet dreams that Osama bin Laden had for training operations in Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

In a report from January 2005, the National Intelligence Council stated, "...a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills...". While no firm numbers on Iraqi insurgents killed are available, it seems likly that the casualties are doing little more than culling the less capable members and giving rise to more highly trained, experienced, motivated and capable terrorist operatives than have been seen in recent memory. These operatives, particularly the foreign nationals fighting alongside Iraqi nationals, are then able to exfiltrate from Iraq and carry the skills they have acquired there around the world.

To think that we will "...defeat them abroad before they attack us at home..." is at best, pollyanish wishful thinking. At worst it is a gross understatement of the threat to both this nation and the world at large. Let us hope our leaders outgrow such foolishness before we pay the price on our shores...again.

Dubbyuh's Special Day

On July 4th, Dubbyuh gave a speech in Morgantown, WV. Of course, this speech was given before a hand-picked audience of approved ticket holders...No subversives or hecklers allowed.

In his speech Dubbyuh reached back in history, a subject he knows little about, and brought forth the memory of the struggles of the Founding Fathers and their strugle for independence. He compared and contrasted this with the current struggle of the Iraqi people. And, I must confess the analogy is interesting.

In 1776, a band of American insurgents rose up, and with the support of some foreign governments and a few foreign troops...Fought, bled and died, in order to finally expell and occupying army from American soil. Indeed, circumstances in Iraq are strikingly similar.

In Iraq, an insurgency has arisen in order to expell occupying foreign troops from Iraqi soil. They also have the support of some foreign nations with about 5% of the manpower for the insugency being compromised of foreign troops. But the occupying military is compromised, primarily of US troops.

On the surface, Dubbyuh's analogy seems appropriate, but when looking at the context it is wholly inappropriate. In launching a war of aggression against Iraq based on questionable pretenses and intel fabricated from whole cloth, the Bush administration has betrayed the struggle of Americans in the Revolutionary war. They have betrayed the ideals of the Founding Fathers. They have betrayed the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.

Illegal...And They Knew it.

We have the Downing Street Minutes and their associated documents.

We have revelations of a bombing campaign called 'Southern Focus' began in June of 2002, which involved over 21,000 sorties against targets in Iraq. Please note this began while the administration was denying the inevitability of war, and some five months before the Administration asked Congress for the authority to begin military operations in Iraq.

And we have this forgotten story...War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

In November of 2003, Richard Perle, one of the architects of Bush Administration policy towards Iraq, stated of the invasion of Iraq:

I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.

Richard Perle admitted the invasion of Iraq was illegal. At the urging of George W. Bush and members of his cabinet, America embarked on a war of aggression in violation of US and international law. They are thus liable for proscecution under that law. It is time we did so.

A word on Karl Rove...

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers... - Karl Rove, 6/22/2005

Liberal that I am, I simply cannot understand Mr. Rove's remarks. After 9/11, I knew someone was going to get the sharp end of the stick...I wanted that to happen, and I don't know of anyone who didn't. I challenge Mr. Rove, or anyone else for that matter, to produce JUST ONE person, liberal or conservative, who voiced the point of view he described. In making such remarks, Mr. Rove slandered the memory of those who perished on that day...He slandered everyone who watched in horror as the planes slammed into the Towers and stood overwhelmed by the tragedy as the Towers collapsed...He slandered the families who lost loved ones to this monstrous tragedy

More important though is that the question as to why Mr. Rove chose to raise the spectre of 9/11 has gone begging. The answer is quite simple...The President's poll numbers continue to slide towards the tipping point...Iraq is sliding towards disintigration...The Downing Street Minutes continue to hound the president, and references to 9/11 are attempt to revive the fears 9/11 raised. Well guess what Mr. Rove...We're not afraid anymore! We've accepted the fact that the world is a dangerous place, and that danger can reach our shores.

The Laming of the President...

Here it is, June nearly over...Dubbyuh's poll numbers sinking like a rock...His social security "reform" legislation DOA...Republicans jockeying for position in '08...Bolton's nomination ground to a halt. It sounds as if Dubbyuh has become a the lamest of ducks. Not the legacy he had planned.

Things could have been different if he'd actually used the put the faith America placed in him after 9/11 to good use. Instead he focused on the politics of polarization and divisiveness. He worked to concentrate power in the hands of the Republican majority in Congress rather than working to form a bipartisan coalition that could actually accomplish something.Instead, he and his advisors chose to brand any who opposed them as "unpatriotic" and "traitors".

He squandered the goodwill extened to the US by the rest of the world after 9/11 in a foolish, wrongheaded and illegal invasion of Iraq. A war which few Americans now support and one which is gutting our all voluteer military and enfeebling it to the point that it may not be able to adequately deal with any other threat to national security. In the course of that war, the attrocities committed at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, GITMO and elswhere shredded the remaining fabric of US credibility abroad. They also served as potent for the recruiting ot the terrorists the Administration claims to be fighting.

This Administration may yet go down as one of the greatest failures of a presidency in American history. We can only hope that the next president, regardless of party or ideology, will be able to pick up the pieces and restore the standing of the office as well as America's standing with the world.

Dubbyuh is fast heading towards irrelevancy as congressional Republicans look beyond 2008 and to their own political fortunes and the risks that will come from riding Dubbyuh's tattered coat-tails. It can't come soon enough.

A "Generational committment..." ?

That's what Condi Rice said of the US commitment in Iraq. This stands in stark contrast to Dick Cheney's assessment in March of 2003 that:

...we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.

Or Rummy's statement in February of 2003 that:

It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

And, let's not forget OMB Director Mitch Daniels' rosy outlook, also in March of 2003:

The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.

We all now know that these optimistic or, more appropriately - unrealistic, estimates were nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. Yet the administration, refusing to accept the estimates of its commanders on the ground continues to cheerily assert that the insurgency in Iraq is in its "last throes". According to General William Webster, the US commander for Baghdad,

Certainly saying anything about 'breaking the back' or 'about to reach the end of the line' or those kinds of things do not apply to the insurgency at this point.

This administration has been so wrong on so many things about Iraq, not the least of which includes the lack of post-war planning cited in the Downing Street Minutes and other documents. Can we really trust their myopic, rose-colored assessment of conditions there now?

A New Look at an Old Letter

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

This is the text of the letter sent by Dubbyuh to Congress on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. It is important to review this in light of the new informatuion which has surfaced in the form of the Downing Street Minutes and other documents.

With regards to paragraph 1, the Downing Street Minutes clearly state that:

Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Saddam was, in essence, no threat to his neighbors, let alone the US or the UK. Furthermore, Peter Rricketts stated that the pace of Saddam's weapons programs was not changed nor, according to the 2002 IAEA Fact Sheet on Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

There were no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance.

In other words, there would have been no smoking gun in the form of a "mushroom cloud" as Condi Rice was so fond of stating. And, as we now know, there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq.

As for Paragraph 2, using Public Law 107-243 to justify military action against Iraq is probelmatic in and of itself. Especialy since several of the premises it is based on are unfounded. First and foremost being that Saddam's regime was a supporter of Al Qaeda, and thus partly responsible for the attacks on 9/11. No credible evidence of any such connection has been produced. Other terrorist organizations, which may have had dealings with Saddam, seems to be greatly exaggerated. Saddam did support Abu Nidal in the early eighties. The last act of anti-American terroism that can be linked to Saddam was in 1993. After that there was no act of international terrorism that could be directly linked to Iraq. While there are those who contend that Iraq provided substantial support to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists, far greater support came from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations supported by the US government.

There is little to directly support the contentions in this letter that support military action against Iraq. The Bush administration was intent on the removal of Saddam Hussein from the beginings of the first Bush administration. 9/11 was merely the lever the Administration used to move Congress to give the president the authority to invade Iraq, and the ceding of that Congressional authority to the President is problematic in and of itself.

And as for the UN resolutions regarding Iraq, it is clear from the Downing Street Minutes that the Bush administration had already decided the UN was to be circumvented. The goal was to try to use the UN a tool to justify war with Iraq rather than an instrument of peace.

The NSC had no patience with the UN route...

LIES...! DAMNED LIES!

George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America’s reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the United States.

While I'd like to take credit for writing this, I can't. Props to Paul Craig Roberts A Reagan Republican with a long and distinguished career. Mr. Roberts has taken a stand in opposition to the war in Iraq from its inception and finds the blindness towards the egregious lies and abuses perpetrated by the Bush administration to be intolerable.

How much longer will we tolerate these lies and abuses? How long before the young men and women who have died for the lies of the Bush administration are vindicated by the impeachment ot this presindent and those who aided him in the formation and implementation of thes ruinous policies? Who much longer wil the blindly devoted supporters of the Bush administration remain blinded? How many more must die for a lie?

Dubbyuh's BIG Lie...

Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. - George W. Bush, 9/16/02

These were Dubbyuh's words. Yet with the release of the "Downing Street" memo, it has become apparent that the Bush administration had already committed America to the pursuit of war.

On July 8, 2002, a meeting took place in London. Present were Tony Blair, Geoffrey Hoon, British secretary of defense; Jack Straw, British secretary of state; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general; John Scarlett, head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which advises Blair; Sir Richard Dearlove, also known as "C," the head of MI6 ; David Manning, Britain's national security adviser; Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the Defense Staff ; Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff; Alastair Campbell, director of strategy; and Sally Morgan, director of government relations.

At that meeting was discussed Dearlove's recent trip to Washington and the discussions which were held there. Nearly thre month's before Dubbyuh's October 16th satement, Dearlove had this to say:

C(Dearlove) reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Contrary to his later statements, Dubbyuh had decided to go to war to remove Hussein from power. This action was to be justified by linking the concepts of WMD's with terrorism. But this would be a simple task in the US as a majority of Americans mistakenly believed that Hussein was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. The intell was being spun and wrung until it fitted the policy the administration chose to pursue. There was no patience amongst the neo-con chicken-hawks in the administration for allowing the UN to finish inspections and make its final report. And as for what happend after the invasion...well they apparently didn't find that to be an issue worthy of their deliberation.

Looking at events as they are now unfolding in Iraq, we now know that there were no WMD's...Hussein had no part of 9/11...There was no credible evidence of any ties between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda...And we are reaping the bitter harvest of the Administration's lack of planning for a post-war Iraq. We see an intractable insurgency, which General Richard Meyer's says is undiminished from a year ago.

Since The Big Lie, more than 1600 US military men and women have gone to their deaths, not to mention the civilian contractors that have died. Nearly 15,000 soldiers and marines have been wounded...maimed...crippled for life. And then there are the Iraqi civilian casualties. Conservative estimates place the total at around 10,000 while others place them at over 20,000.

How many more must die for a lie?

Nuclear option defused...for now.

Last night, common sense prevailed, and Senate moderates including Senators Byrd, DeWine, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, Lieberman, Salazar, Inouye, Warner, McCain, Snowe, Collins, Graham and Chafee, reached a compromise ont the issue of judiciak filibusters. Like all compromises, it is not perfect, and fails to satisfy the extreme elements on both sides of the argument. But the power to filibuster judicial nominees remains.

Unfortunately, as part of this compromise, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor some of the most extreme right-wing of Dubbyuh's picks will be voted on.

James Dobson, of Focus On the Family, immediately put in his two-cents worth, claiming that,

This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush’s nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed.

A "...complete bailout and betrayal..." by moderate Republicans. He further goes on to decry the judicial filibuster as "unconstitutional". How can anyone take seriously the man who 'outed' Sponge Bob Squarepants?

While not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, the filibuster has been used since 1841, with the only significant change to Senate rules on the matter coming in 1917, when the cloture rule was put into place. Since then, it has remained a powerful tool by minorities, on both sides of the Senate aisle, to further debate on a given issue or nomination, protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

More significantly though, is that moderate Republicans were willing to sidestep the Republican leadership in Congress that was pushing for the "nuclear option", especially Bill Frist. It was Frist, after all, who went contrary to the Administrations's desire to have John Bolton's nominaation brought to the floor before the judicial nominations. In doing so, he hoped to cement the support of religious far right-wing for a run for the White House in 2008. Now, however, he's been rolled and how much politcal capital he he has left with that raucus and fickle minority remains to be seen.

This can be seen as the first step in a return to common-sense and sanity in the Senate. Or, as I fear it will be, it can be seen as the first volley in a battle leading to further extremeism and polarization in the halls of Congress.

Don't like the rules...? Just Change 'em

With the battle over the filibuster heating up in the Senate, understanding a few of the Senate rules that Senator Frist's, and the Republican leadership, will be breaking in the "nuclear option" in its implementation.

Senate Rules and Precedents That Would be Broken Through Exercise of the Nuclear Option

Violation # 1. Rule V: The Senate must follow its Rules to amend its Rules
Paragraph 2 of Rule V states expressly that “Rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these Rules.” (emphasis added). The proposed nuclear option is a deliberate end-run around the Senate’s regular process (discussed below) for amending its own Rules because Senator Frist does not have the strong bipartisan support he needs in the current Senate to follow the regular order.

Violation # 2. Rule V: Suspending the Rules without amending them.
The Senate Rules provide expressly for the sole mechanism to suspend the Rules without amending them. Under Rule V, paragraph 1, the Senate may only suspend its Rules either by unanimous consent or by adopting a motion to suspend the Rules. Adoption of such a motion requires a 2/3 vote of Senators present.3 The nuclear option, by relying on a simple majority vote to change the Rules without changing the text (arguably a kind of suspension), clearly violates the 2/3 vote requirement.

Violation # 3. Rule XXII: Violating the process for changing the Senate’s Rules.
Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII establishes the requirements for ending debate on a proposed change to the Senate’s Rules. Under Rule XXII, a cloture petition signed by sixteen Senators must first be submitted to the Senate. The vote to invoke cloture (end debate) on amendment to the Rules cannot be held until 2 days after the cloture petition is filed, and the rule provides that 2/3 of Senators present and voting must consent to end debate.

Violation #4. Failing to submit a constitutional Point of order to the Senate.
Proponents of the nuclear option purport to justify their unprecedented approach by invoking the U.S. Constitution – to the point of trying to rename the nuclear option the “constitutional option.”4 Some have even argued that the filibuster of judicial nominations is unconstitutional, and that the Senate can therefore ignore its process for amending the Rules to eliminate it.5 Under long-established precedents of the Senate, when a point of order with an asserted constitutional basis is raised, the Chair does not rule on the point of order but instead submits it directly to the full Senate.6 However, such a point of order is debatable and it would take 60 votes to end debate on the constitutional point of order and bring it to a vote. Because it is not clear that Senator Frist has 51 votes for the nuclear option – much less 60 – it is likely that Vice President Cheney will rule directly on Frist’s “constitutional” point of order, violating Senate precedent.

Violation # 5. Rule XXII: Ending debate on a nomination.
The text of Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII expressly requires 60 Senators (3/5s of Senators duly chosen and sworn) to vote to end debate on “any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate,” including a judicial nomination. If the nuclear option is successful, and for the first time in our history Senators’ right to debate is ended by simple majority vote, this will constitute an express violation of Rule XXII’s 60 vote requirement. In essence, Rule XXII would be changed, but not in a manner provided by the Rules of the Senate.

Violation # 6. Overriding the Senate’s Parliamentarian
The Senate Parliamentarian is the officer charged with keeping the precedents of the Senate and advising the presiding officer of the Rules and precedents of the Senate if a point of order is raised from the floor. The current Parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, has worked for that office as either Parliamentarian or assistant Parliamentarian since 1977 under both Democratic and Republican majorities. It has been widely reported that the Senate Parliamentarian will advise the chair that any point of order to force a simple majority vote to end debate on a nominee would violate the Rules and precedents of the Senate. Therefore, for the nuclear option to succeed, the presiding officer, most likely Vice President Cheney in his role as President of the Senate, would have to ignore the advice of the Parliamentarian in ruling on a point of order. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, such an action would “constitute an extraordinary proceeding involving peremptory departure from the established system of Senate procedure.”7

Vice President Cheney will need to ignore the Parliamentarian to invoke the nuclear option because Republicans must engineer a scenario where, as stated above, nuclear option opponents appeal a ruling of the chair endorsing the nuclear option. Frist must ensure that opponents appeal because the appeal itself is debatable, while a motion to table (kill) the appeal is not debatable. If Republican leaders try to overturn an adverse ruling by the chair through their own appeal (which would occur if the chair follows the parliamentarian), opponents could simple filibuster the appeal and a motion to table the appeal would set the opposite precedent than Frist wishes to achieve.

It should be apparent to all by now, that the Republican leadership in Congress and the White House consider themselves to be above and beyond any rule or law. Those that they find inconvenient or obstructive to their agenda, they try to change. In the House, the Republican leadership tried to change the ethics rules to benefit Tom DeLay, given the possibility of his indictment in Texas. The Republican leadership in the Senate is attempting to change rules which allow a principled minority to stand up to the tyranny of the majority. The Administration has changed rules on air and water quality, workplace safety, Medicare, bankruptcy, etc. because they were inconvenient to campaign contributors, thus to the money flowing into Republican pockets.

The Republican leadership in this nation preach about the virtues of ehtics and values. The reality, however, is that they lack any ethics and value only that which tightens their grip on power. They are the greatest threat the Republic now faces...not from terrorists...not from "activist judges"...not from permitting the marriage of same-gender couples. They, not some outside enemy, will be the death of the Republic.

We have met the enemy...And he is us! - Pogo

Newsweek and the Desecration of the Koran

While the desecration of anything which is sacred to another is inherently wrong, I tend to believe the initial version of the Newsweek story on the desecration of the Koran at GITMO.

Why...? Quite simple. In US prisons, it is common practice for guards to go into an inmates cell while they are seeing a visitor or otherwise out of their cell and toss the cell. They will then throw whatever the inmate holds most dear, be it a family photo, prayer beads, a Bible, A Koran...in the toilet. So it would not surprise me that a common tactic used to break prisoners here in the US would be used in attempting to break detainees being interrogated at GITMO, Abu-Ghraib, or any of the other unknown and unnamed US detention facilities around the world.

It would not require any great stretch of the imagination to think that the administration put pressure on the editorial board at Newsweek to quash the story and discredit their source. Given the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy and aversion to the truth, it is very likely the case.

Here are sources backing up the Newsweek story:

72.They were never given prayer mats and initially they didn’t get a Koran. When the Korans were provided, they were kicked and thrown about by the guards and on occasion thrown in the buckets used for the toilets. This kept happening. When it happened it was always said to be an accident but it was a recurrent theme.

74.Asif says that ‘it was impossible to pray because initially we did not know the direction to pray, but also given that we couldn’t move and the harassment rom the guards, it was simply not feasible. The behaviour of the guards towards our religious practices as well as the Koran was also, in my view, designed to cause us as much distress as possible. They would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it. It is clear to me that he conditions in our cells and our general treatment were designed by the officers in charge of the interrogation process to “soften us up”’.

Detainees also complained about the interference with their ability to pray and the lack of respect given to their religion. For example, the British detainees state that they were never given prayer mats and initially were not provided Korans. They also complained that when the Korans were provided, the guards “would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.” - Human Rights Watch, October 2004

These revelations are nothing new, they are simply being used to pressure media outlets, which question Administration policy, to toe the ideological line. Chairman of the JCS, General Richard Meyers, stated that the riots in Afghanistan have more to do with the general dissatisfaction with the political process than anything else. So, this coincidental violence provides yet another opportunity for the Administration to force US media outlets to come to heel.

The Morning After...

In December 2003, Plan B, an emergency contraception medication, was approved by a vote of 23 to 4 by the FDA Advisory Committee on Reproductive Health Medications for over the counter sale. Despite this recommendation, the FDA, headed by Scott McClellan. If the last name isn't familiar he's the brother of Puffy McMoonface, a.k.a. Mark McClellan, White House Press Secretary. Instrumental to the denial of Plan B's OTC sale was Dr. W. David Hager, OB/GYN, conservtive Christian and darling of the Bush administration...But more about him later.

Plan B is designed for emergency contraception and IS NOT an abortifacient, despite claims to the contrary by the drugs anti-abortion foes. The drug inhibits ovulation, and if ovulation has already occurred, it prevents the implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterine wall. Since around 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant anyways, there is really no interuption in the life-cycle as is claimed by anti-abortionists. Their claim that life begins at conception has no scientific or rational merit and may be dismissed.

Also, easy access to emergency contraception would help reduce the number of abortions over all in that it would not be necessary to seek one as an unplanned pregnacy could be avoided. But a new application for OCT sale certification by Plan B's manufacturer has languished since the FDA missed a deadline for responding to the application in January.

Back to Dr. Hager...After the advisory committee voted to recommend OTC sale of Plan B, Dr. Hager stated that he produced a "minority report" at the request from "outside the agency" but later stated that he produced the report at the request of an FDA staffer. An FDA spokeswoman stated that there had been no internal request, and he had sent a "private citizen letter" on the matter to Scott McClellan, Puffy McMoonface's brother.

Dr. Hager made his decision based on his belief that the medication is an abortifacient even though it has no effect on an established pregnancy. His decision is a matter of faith rather fact, and when making decisions affecting human life, fact must trump faith.

But what of Dr. Hager himself? His books show his view of women to be less than equitable, and men should act as "benevolent authority figures" towards women. In 2002, he spearheaded a campign to block the manufacure and distribution of RU-486 in the US. And, more recently, his former wife of 32 years has come forward with accounts of their marriage. This includes an extramarital affair by Dr. Davis with a friend of his former wife...Videotaping and photographing their sexual activity...Forcible sodomy, yes, in all 50 states, marital rape is a crime.

With Dr. Hager's political star rising, he stands to be re-nominated for his position on the FDA advisory committee, or even advancement to a position with even more authority over women's health issues. Imagine...a misogynistic, abusive man making policy regarding women's health issues. But his is par for the course for this administration, Condi Rice, despite her failures as NSA was promoted to Secretatry of State...John Negroponte, having no Middle East experience was promoted to Proconsul of Iraq. And after fleeing Iraq like a whipped dog, he is now the National Intelligence Director...John Bolton, with his rabid, reflexive loathing of any challenge to himself or US power, is nominated to be UN Ambassador.

How much longer will it be before the religious right wing-nuts in this country demand that women be stripped of the franchise and relegated, once more, to the status of chatttel...? Unable to own property...Unable to work outside the home...To be used for no other purpose than to satisfy the desires and silently suffer the abuse of her lord and master? This is the hidden agenda of of the religious far right-wing fringe in this country. But this lunatic fringe is polluting the mainstream ever more...To the point that it is becoming the mainstream.

John Bolton And Dubbyuh's Foreign Policy...or Lack Thereof

The real fight over John Bolton's nomination rally doesn't have so much to do with Bolton himself, although you really wouldn't know it given the storm of controversy his nomination has generated. According to Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, the real fight is over the Administration's unilateralist foreign policy. And Bolton would simply be the cat's-paw for the Administration in pursuit of those policies.

Dubbyuh could, as he did recently, travel abroad and preach of the wonders and glories of democracy, and then return home and pursue economic and political policies detrimental to nascent democracies. John Bolton, staunch supporter of US dominance in the world, is the man for the job. And he reflects many of the attributes of this Administration.

Like the Administration, Bolton has a history of discouraging criticism. Like the Administration, Bolton's disdain for the UN is absolute. Also, like the Administration, he has tried to spin intel and facts to fit policy. In 2002 he made accusations about Cuba and bio-weapons development that went far beyond anything presented by CIA analysts and he attempted to have the analyst who questioned him on the matter fired. Also in 2002, as well as 2003, he made statements regarding Syria's development of "unconventional weapons" that were rejected as "exaggerated" by the CIA.

Meanwhile, Colin Powell is working quietly behind the scenes of this three-ring circus. While not actively opposing Bolton's nomination, he is talking to Republican maderates, doubtless recounting the rear-guard action he had to fight against Bolton during his time at the State Department. And it was known at the time that Dick Cheney had Bolton installed at State to "...derail the multilateralists...".

Despite Bolton's history, the fight in the Senate over his nomination really has little to do with that history. It is a referendum on the foreign policy of the Bush administration...a unilateralist, isolationist policy which has led us to the straights our country is in today. And given the Administration's scorched earth tactics in these political battles, it will get uglier before all is said and done.

Our moral guardians...?

On May 5th, Neil Horsley, far right-wing misogynist and anti-abortion activist, had a little conversation with Alan Colmes where he admitted a mule was his "first girlfriend". In his own words...

"You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. You're naive. You know better than that... If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it."

Conservative Spokane, Washington mayor, James West, is enmeshed in charges of offering jobs and sports memorabilia in return for sex with young men. Also on the plate are charges of his molesting 2 boys during his time as a deputy sheriff and boy scout leader.

Oh, and let's not forget Jeff/Jim Guckert/Gannon, former ace reporter for Talon News who attended over 200 White House press conferences, entered the Whiote House on numerous occaisions some of which were incompletely documented, and...wait for it...was a gay prostitute.

Yes boys and girls, these are just some of the self-proclaimed guardians of American morality and precious bodily fluids. By day, they're solidly conservative, moralizing, gay bashing Republicans. By night, they're doing poppers at the Manhole and cruising for gay, or for some - interspecies, sex.

It just never ends, does it...?

Here we are, 4 years into the 21st century, and the Scopes Monkey Trial and Darwinian evolution are still being hashed out.

Kansas, whose school-board decided in 1999 to have all mention of evolution stricken from school science curricula until a sane school board was later elected, has once more decided to turn its back on science and embrace pseudo-science in an attempt to present a "balanced" view regardeing the teaching of evolution in the form of "intelligent design". This after the intellectually challenged once again gained a majority on the state school board. This 'theory' states that given the complexity of life, life could only have developed with the assistance of some unseen intelligence. While not overtly based in religious doctrine, and drawing from the terminology of molecular biology, DNA and relying on gaps in fossil records, it is hoped that it will be presented in classrooms on equal footing with Darwinian evolution.

There is no basis for this, and "intelligent design" is not science. There exists no serious debate of the scientific validity of Darwinian evolution. Studies in the Galapagos Islands, and other isolated ecosystems have validated the fact of evolution and Darwin's theory of natural selection which supports it. Even Pope John Paul IV in 1996 accepted the validity of evolution, and given the value many place on other of his opinions, except where they contradict their own, it should stand to reason that they give this opinion the same credence they give to the late Pope's "culture of life".

So here we are, 80 years after the Scope's Monkey Trial, and folks just can't accept the fact of the matter...Evolution is not just a 'theory', it is a fact. One can only wonder when these devolutionists are going to insist that women and minorities be denied the vote

IT'S IMPEACHMENT TIME!

In a memo labeled "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY" and dated 7/23/2002, lies evidence that has led, up to this point, 87 US House members to sign a letter demanding an explanation from the Bush administration about the content of this memo. Especially,

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The administration was "fixing" the intel around the policy. In other words, the intel was being cherry-picked and spun to fit the policy. Any intel which didn't support the policy or contradicted it was quietly shunted aside and ignored.You know, like the findings of the IAEA under Mohammed el-Baradei...UNSCOM's Scott Ritter...But this administration has never let inconvenient facts stand in its way.

America went to war in Iraq based upon a fabric of lies. If the information in this memo does not substantiate charges of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against Dubbyuh and members of his administration...nothing will. We can take the Constitution out of its case and burn it, as it will no longer be needed...the Republic will have died.

Tony Blair...A sinking political ship?

New documents reveal that Tony Blair was complicit in setting the stage for war with Iraq. These documents show that PM Blair was committed to regime change in Iraq along with the Bush administration, this despite the fact that Lord Goldsmith, British AG, repeatedly warned him that such action could be illegal as early as 2002. Other documents show that Britain, folowing the lead of the US, had to somehow "create" the necessary pretext for war with Iraq.

As if this wasn't enough, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, former Chief of the Defence Staff, voiced concerns about not having legal cover should war crimes charges be brought before the International Criminal Court. Admiral Boyce stated that he had never seen Lord Goldsmith's initial, very qualified, advice about the legality of war with Iraq. Admiral Boyce further stated that if he, as well as officers and enlisted personel who served in Iraq wound up serving prison terms, he would make sure "...Other perople were brought into the frame as well...". When pressed as to whetehr he meant Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, he replied, "Too bloody right."

Tony Blair's political ship is about to have its belly ripped open on the shoals of this damning evidence regarding the legality of the war in Iraq. When Blair's ship founders, can Dubbyuh's be far behind? One can only hope.

The "Gay Agenda"...?

At least that's what Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says is motivating a piece of legislation he has introduced in the ALabama legislature.

His bill would ban books by such well known authors as Truman Capote, Gore Vidal or Tennesee Williams would be culled from the shelves of Alabama's public libraries as well as school and universitiy libraries. He also wanted to ban Shakespeare's works from the bookshelves but withdrew that paragraph after "some criticism".

His legislation would also supress any mention of homosexuality as a genetic trait. Furthermore any books featuring gay or bisexual characters would be barred from libraries. Mr. Allen, apparently found homosexual content, and evidence of the "Gay Agenda" to turn the whole world queer, in every book he picked up.

This piece of legislation would have left library shelves empty and dusty, as well as throwing a number of librarians out of work. It represents nothing more than a good, old-fashioned book burning similar to that practiced by the Soviet Union after the communists siezed power...or Nazi Germany practiced with Jewish literature...or as Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia.

I think that Mr. Allen, and his fellow travelers should look to putting their own houses in order before they start tearing down the houses of others. Mr. Allen's legislation is probably a manifestation of his own doubts and fears regarding his own sexuality, and he either needs to just get over it or come out of the closet. Either one would suffice...at least he would stop bothering other folks.

And you may have noticed I used the past tense a couple of paragraphs back...Mr. Allen's legilation died on the floor af the Alabama legislature, as it should have.

American Traitors

In 2000, this nation had a $230 billion dollar budget surplus. By 2004, that surplus had evaporated, to be replaced by a deficit of $412 billion (1.).

In May of 2000, Japan held $337 billion in US treasuries, China - $60.4 billion, OPEC $48.3 billion. In total, $1,260.8 billion in US debt was held by foreign central banks. (2.) In February of 2005, Japan held $702.1 billion, China - $196.5 billion, OPEC - $67.1 billion. In total, $1,996 billion in US debt is being held by foreign central banks.(3.)

This amount of US debt in the hands of foreign interests represents a threat to this nation unimagined by our Founding Fathers over two hundred years ago, let alone two or three decades ago. Foreign interests, with their hands on America's purse-strings, may now have the power to devastate the US economy at any time of their choosing. This blade hangs over America, yet our elected, some would say selected, leaders refuse to acknowledge its presence...let alone their complicity...in bringing about this state of affairs.

This administration has presided over wartime tax-cuts, a free-falling dollar, and surging foreign trade deficits as well as the ever expanding federal budget deficit, estimated at some $512 billion for 2005 (4.) ( this doesn't even include the cost of ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq).

In placing our nations finacial health so firmly in the hands of foreign powers, this adminstration has betrayed its responsibility to the American people...It has abandoned any pretext of fiscal responsibility...It has turned a blind eye to war profiteers (5.)...In short, this administration and the Republican leadership in Congress have betrayed their oaths of office by ceding so much power over this nation directly into the hands of foreign agents. This is nothing short of treason, and its perpetrators should be brought to justice. It is time to stop coddling these vipers in our breast and name them for the traitors they are.

Break down barriers between church and state...?

Be careful what you wish for.

The consequences of embracing Tom DeLay's and Bill Frist's crusade against an independent jusidciary and their appeals to a particularly xenophobic form of Christianity are simple. The breaking down of the barriers between church and state.

While not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, it is implicit, as stated in Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. - Thomas Jefferson, Jan. 1, 1802

Further reading of the letter makes it clear that religious freedom is a matter of individual conviction, and not to be brought into the realm of politics. This ideal has enjoyed legal status throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, and rather than stifling religion, has given rise to enourmous diversity in religious expression and practice in this nation, one not seen elsewhere in the world.

Also, the framers of the Constitution had a perspective on the merging of church and state that we do not have today. They needed only to look to recent history of Puritan Massachussetts to see the threat that a union of religion and politics posed. In Massachussetts, religious dissenters were hanged and "witches" were burned at the stake. The Founding Fathers looked to this and knew that it was not what they wanted for this nation. Recent history gives us the examples of Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Saudia Arabia, Indonesia, and others to show the flaws and instability inherent in the mingling religion and politics.

The separation of church and state has also benefitted religion in the form of property-tax exemptions for church owned property. And I don't see anyone suppoting the union of church and state supporting the imposition of these taxes on their churches. If there is to be more church in the state, there should also be more state in the church.

The democratic principles this nation was built upon are messy, and rely on compromise and concensus building amongst a variety of views. Religion, on the other hand, is built upon absolutes, undebatable dogmas and authority. There is no room for "...We the People..." to exercise any authority. Thus the only way for the two to co-exist is to do so separately. Religion remains in the personal realm and secularism prevails in the political realm.

The American Banana Republic

In Central and South America, authoritarian regimes which pay lip service to the rule of law have been the norm. And the US government, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, has clandestinely supported the ouster of democratically elected governments in favor of these authoritarian regimes.

Now, at the hands of the Republican leadership, America is at risk of becoming a banana republic. Granted, they aren't bribing judges and other government officials, they are cloaking their actions in the mantle of religion. Regardless of the rationale, the end result will be the same...Centralized, authroitarian power with no effective checks and balances and paying lip service to the concept of democratic institutions.

Banana republic status will be our future if these closet fascists are left unchecked, and gutting the judiciary is the final element of this agenda. Without a strong and independent judiciary, the Republic will become another banana republic and the dream of America will die. Make you choice, call your senators and tell them this must not come to pass...donnot impose the "nuclear option" and strip the minority of its last, best tool for standing against the tyrrany of the majority.

Justice Sunday...?

..."Just Us Sunday" would, I think be more approprpriate.

Senator Frist is playing a dangerous game with some of the most extreme elements of the Christian conservative movement in America. One that could, with any luck, kill his political career. In making television appearnaces today with a small and extreme, but incredibly vocal and politically savvy fringe of religionists, he launches an attack on any who stand outside this tent as being "un-Christian" and working to undermine Christianity.

You may have noticed that I failed to call these people "Christian"...And with good reason. I do this as the leaders of these religionists have abandoned their faith for political power. As they are unable to convince most people of the soundness of their agenda by means of reasoned argument, they are seeking to move their doctrine from the church to the legislature. There, they hope to have it enacted into law, thus imposing their agenda upon the rest of us...at the point of a gun.

They seek to undermine the judiciary, which provides a check to the unlimited exercise of power by either the legislative or executive branches. They wish to supplant a strong, independent judiciary with a rubber-stamp judiciary that will unquestioningly uphold their ideological agenda.

These religionists, rather than focusing on the heart of the teachings of Jesus have, instead, narrowed the discussion down to abortion and same-gender marriage.

...35:For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. - Matthew 25: 35-36

What has become of this message? It has been drowned out by those who would hijack religion and pervert its message to further their own political agenda, selecting only those passages which may be used to this end, excluding all the rest.

The assertions made by the Republican leadership and the leadership of these religionists are the seeds of theocracy, and if these people desire to live in a theocracy, they should gather up their belongings and move to one. Their attempts to create one from the secular republic established by the Founding Fathers is an affront to their memory and a subversion of their goals.

In closing I leave these politicians and religionists with this:

13: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. - Matthew 23: 13-15

These politicians and religionists wear the mantle of Christianity, but they soil it in doing so. They preach Christian virtue yet fail to practice it. They mouth the words, yet fail to understand their meaning. They are the threat to this Republic.

Take these people seriously!

Chriscons...christofascists...the rapture right...religious right wing-nuts...whatever you call them, take them seriously.

On April 19th, "Family Lobby Day" was held in Ohio's statehouse. A coalition of 6 faith-based groups had appointments with 97 of Ohio's 132 state legislators, leaving "information packets" for the rest.

Emboldened by the passage of a deeply flawed ballot issue banning state recognition of any relationships beyond that of the marriage of a man and woman, these activists are working more fervently than ever to have their particular, peculiar brand of Christian ideology enacted into law.

They would like to see a "Terri Schiavo" bill passed barring removal of feeding tubes from patients who are in a chronic vegetative state if family members cannot aree on the matter. This is un-necessary as law already provides clear guidelines on the issue.

They wish to see a ban on ALL abortions in order to force the issue before the SCOTUS in hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade. This would remove the option of safe, legal abortions from the table and leave countless women to die at the hands of back-alley butchers. So much for a "Culture of Life".

They want an "adoptive children's protective act" passed. This would bar the adoption of children by same-gender couples. There is no evidence to be found, anywhere, that children adopted and raised by same-gender couples are harmed in any way by the experience. Unless you consider that these children regard such relationships to be normal harmful.

Their legislative agenda has nothing so much to do with religion as it does with power. They are not clamoring for programs to help the least of us...they are not calling for social justice...Instead, they are seeking to have their own narrow, selective reading of Christian doctrine into law. I would say to them that if they wish to live in a theocracy, they should move to one rather than attempt to create one from the secular republic the Founding Fathers established.

To dismiss these fringe elements, which are rapidly moving into the mainstream, of the conservative movement would be a grave mistake. We do so at our own peril, for they are as great a threat to the Republic as any terrorist who wraps themselves in the mantle of religious purity. They are simply more subtle..for now.

The story I cited appeared in the the "The Columbus Dispatch", 4/20/05, pg C5, "Fatih-based lobbyists meet with lawmakers" - Mark Niquette

Don't like the numbers...? Don't publish them!

True to form, Dubbyuh's administration has once more decided that since it didn't like the numbers, it won't publish the data. This in reference to the State Department's annual report on international terrorism. After being forced to recant the rosy picture that was painted in 2003's report when the truth was revealed (acts of internationl terrorism actually increased rather than decreased) State will no longer publish those statistics.

According to Richard Boucher at State, those stats will be published by the newly created National Counterterrorism Center, but they're not sure where or when those reports will be published. I think we can assume that, given this Administrations penchant for compartmentalizing information which shows it in a bad light, that information will either never be published or classified so that it is never distributed to the public.

And speaking of terrorism, whatever happened to the daily "Terror Alerts"? There hasn't been one issued since the election. Could it be that they were simply a tool for manipulating the emotions of the public in the run-up to the election? Nah, that's too cynical even for me...

And it just keeps getting weirder...

The Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration met in its star chamber over the weekend and has reached a verdict...

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is guilty of prohibiting capital punishment for juveniles and and citing "international norms" in his findings. He should therefore be impeached...at least acording to Phyllis Schlafly and Michael P. Farris.

Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer (just whose constitution is open to debate), stated that because Kennedy helped strike down Texas' anti-sodomy law, he was upholding "...Marxist, Leninist satanic principles drawn from foreign law...".

Vieira went on to say that his principles in dealing with the SCOTUS were drawn from ol'Joe Stalin himself. "No man, no problem..." he said. He left out the part about death solving all problems.

And dear Phyllis went on to gush, in giddy, girlish tones, about how the morally crippled Tom DeLay (R,Texas) and the congenital idiot Richard Cornyn (R,Texas)(not all Texans are idiots...just the ones in national political office) should be fully supported in their quest to destroy and independent judiciary and turn it into something more to their liking...a rubber stamp comes to mind.

The truly frightening, or pathetic depending on how you look at it, thing about these people is they do not seem to see the inherent contradiction or irony in preserving the Constitution through Stalinesque tactics. As for their desire to restore the constitution, as with Mr. Vieira, just whose constitution they wish to 'restore' is a matter which is open for debate.

The lunatic-fringe of the right wing-nuts is moving towards the mainstream of political consciousness, and they could hopelessly pollute that stream with their gibberish. In any sane society, these mawkish buffoons would by ridiculed to the point that they could no longer show their faces in public. But, as evidenced by the unquestioned acceptance of Mr. Vieira's embracing of Stalin by the crowd and how little coverage this meeting recieved, we do not live in a sane society. To quote a favorite author of mine, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." - HST. And these people are stone-cold professional weird.

As I listened to Colin Powell read his essay "The America I Believe In", I know he loves his country. But that love took a backseat as he forswore his oath to support and defend the Constitution and as his misguided loyalty to a corrupt administration led him to attempt to justify war with Iraq before the United Nations. A war which, by any standard, was illegal and unjustified. But this did not stop Mr. Powell from plying the snake-oil the Bush administration was peddling to the world at large.

As the world has since seen, there were no weapons of mass destruction...There were no UAV's capable of delivering lethal bio-weapons beyond Iraq's borders let alone to Europe, as was claimed...There were no mobile bio-weapon labs. We only had to look to the pre-invasion reports from UNSCOM to verify this.

But this did not deter then Secretary of State Powell. He went where angels fear to tread and now we have over 1500 dead US troops with some 11,000 wounded and maimed men and women. So Mr. Powell, sleep well knowing what you have helped come to pass. Instead of doing the right thing and raising your voice in protest to the machinations of the Bush administration, you carried water for them. You share their guilt.

The America I Believe In

He has no shame...

Unable to wait until Terri Schiavo's corpse had cooled, let alone been interred, Tom DeLay just HAD to open his foul, foetid blowhole...AGAIN.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Thursday blamed Terri Schiavo's death on what he contended was a failed legal system and he raised the possibility of trying to impeach some of the federal judges in the case.

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," said DeLay, R-Texas. - ABC News

This in regards to the percieved failure of the federal courts to act on the federal version of "Terri's Law". He called the failure of the federal courts to order the re-insertion of her feeding tube a "...perfect example of an out of control judiciary...". What he convenienlty failed to mention is that the 11th circuit, based in Atlanta, is one of the most conservative federal court jurisdictions in the country. Nor did he mention that Judge Stanley Birch, who wrote the opinion jarshly critical of Congress and Dubbyuh's involvement in the case is one of the most conservative judges on the federal bench.

According to Judge Birch, this effort by the Legislative and Executive branches was a violation of the separation of powers laid down in the Constitution. They did so by "...arrogating vital judicial functions to itself...". This is not an "out of control liberal judge" talking. This is a rock solid contitutional conservative judge saying the things that the so-called conservaitve in Congress should have been saying.

But that's what the principle of checks and balances is all about. And if the judiciary finds the stance of the Legislative and Executive branches to be untenable or unacceptable on Constitutional grounds, that's the way the system was meant to work. The Republic will collapse under its own weight in the absence of independent judiciary. This attack by DeLay is yet another volley in the battle by this administration and its backers to hamstring the judiciary, thus controlling all three branches of government.

But I can't help wondering when Tom DeLay will be held to answer for his behavior.

Dubbyuh's political machine continues to rattle and clank its way across the country trying to prop up sagging support for his "Social Security Reform"...Read as: "Giveaway to Wall Street contributors". Part of this effort includes tax-payer funded "town hall" style meetings. Unfortunately all of the residents, who are tax-payers by the way, of the towns these meetings are held in don't have access to them. Instead, the attendees are carefully vetted by the local Republican Party apparatchiki for their loyalty to the party line. Local opposition is black-listed or ejected from the proceedings if they somehow find their way in.

Three Denver residents yesterday charged that they were forcibly removed from one of President Bush's town meetings on Social Security because they displayed a bumper sticker on their car condemning the administration's Middle East policies. - The Washington Post

In Fargo, N.D., where Bush held a Social Security event in February, a local newspaper reported that more than 40 residents were placed on a "black list" of people who were not to receive tickets because they had expressed opposition to Bush's policies. - The LA Times

With all of this orchestration, I can only wonder if they haven't re-animated the corpse of Leni Reifenstahl, and have her directing the campaign. Either than or they transplanted her brain into Karen Hughes' body.

Can you say "Hypocrite"...?

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told evangelical Christians last week that only Christianity offers a reasonable answer to basic questions about the purpose of life. - The Washington Post

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but Tom DeLay shrouding himself in the mantle of Christian virtue is rather like dressing a pig in velvet and brocade. It makes the pig uncomfortable and the velvet and brocade gets soiled and tattered. But Tom has much to be uncomfortable about as it is...not the least of which are his questionable ethics and being a hairs breadth away from an indictment in Texas. And by his actions, he soils the good name of Christianity. By past standards he would be branded a blasphemer and stoned to death.

Then there's that little thing about Christianity "...being the only reasonable answer..." to life's challenges. Well, I've got news for him...a goodly majority of the world's population has gotten along just fine without his particular brand of Christianity, thank you very much.

And, of course, there was his little speech before The Family Research Council in which he promised that Republican leaders would work to implement the political agenda of the religious right wing-nuts. But golly, can you overlook those ethics charges and possible indictments? For the whole written transcript and audio tape, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State is the website to go to. They've got all the sordid details on Tom's groveling and whining.

It should be obvious by now, to anyone capable of rational thought, that the Republicans are using religion to further their own political power while, in actuality, they do nothing more than pay lip-service to Christian virtue.

5: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. - Matthew 7, 5-6

Citations:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18077-2002Apr19¬Found=true

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=press_audio

Sleaze merchants, not statesmen, soil the halls of Congress

Like many Americans, I suspect, I tried to picture how I would have reacted if a bunch of smarmy, camera-seeking politicians came anywhere near a hospital room where my own relative was hooked up to life support. I imagined summoning the Clint Eastwood of "Dirty Harry," not "Million Dollar Baby." But before my fantasy could get very far, star politicians with the most to gain from playing the God card started hatching stunts whose extravagant shamelessness could upstage any humble reverie of my own.

Senator Bill Frist, the Harvard-educated heart surgeon with presidential aspirations, announced that watching videos of Ms. Schiavo had persuaded him that her doctors in Florida were mistaken about her vegetative state - a remarkable diagnosis given that he had not only failed to examine the patient ostensibly under his care but has no expertise in the medical specialty, neurology, relevant to her case. No less audacious was Tom DeLay, last seen on "60 Minutes" a few weeks ago deflecting Lesley Stahl's questions about his proximity to allegedly criminal fund-raising by saying he would talk only about children stranded by the tsunami. Those kids were quickly forgotten as he hitched his own political rehabilitation to a brain-damaged patient's feeding tube. Adopting a prayerful tone, the former exterminator from Sugar Land, Tex., took it upon himself to instruct "millions of people praying around the world this Palm Sunday weekend" to "not be afraid."

The president was not about to be outpreached by these saps. The same Mr. Bush who couldn't be bothered to interrupt his vacation during the darkening summer of 2001, not even when he received a briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," flew from his Crawford ranch to Washington to sign Congress's Schiavo bill into law. The bill could have been flown to him in Texas, but his ceremonial arrival and departure by helicopter on the White House lawn allowed him to showboat as if he had just landed on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Within hours he turned Ms. Schiavo into a slick applause line at a Social Security rally. "It is wise to always err on the side of life," he said, wisdom that apparently had not occurred to him in 1999, when he mocked the failed pleas for clemency of Karla Faye Tucker, the born-again Texas death-row inmate, in a magazine interview with Tucker Carlson. - Frank Rich, The New York Times

Listening to Dubbyuh, Bill Frist and Tom DeLay bray about the virtue of erring "...on the side of life..." just makes my skin crawl. Their utter hypocrisy, smarmy insincerity and sleazy political oportunism is shameless...but they have no shame. Their eagerness to make poltical hay from the the private tragedy of a family in agony is an apalling sign of just how far the Republic has fallen. Gone are the statesmen from America's past. In their place, we find snake-oil merchants of every stripe...wild-eyed religious fanatics...grifters...and a tiny minority of people who do care about the nation. These latter, however, are drowned out by the braying of the asses who form the majority which roams the halls of our nation's capital, soiling them with their very presence.

It's time to clean house, and put the live-stock out to pasture where they can do no harm.

The Right Wing Three Ring Circus

And that's what these sorry sacks of excrement have made of Terri Schiavo's case. They passed legislation, which was then signed by the head sack-o-crap, affecting a single individual. This pernicious bit of legislative skulduggery will allow Mrs. Schiavo's case to be heard before the federal judiciary. The Florida legislature passed a law aimed at keeping Mrs. Schiavo's PEG tube in place and had it thrown back in their faces by the Florida Supreme Court, and ignored by the SCOTUS. Barney Franks (D, MA) had it right when he said that this is a violation of the separation of powers, and that Congress' role was the determination of broad policy issues and the courts were for individual adjudication. All well and good with right wing-nuts except when they get their panties in a twist over a given issue. Then, by golly it's "Katie bar the door...!", as they bitch and whine about "activists judges" interfering with the legislative process and the "will of the people".

Only Mrs. Schiavo's case, the federal version of Florida's overturned "Terri's Law", wasn't about the "will of the people", it wasn't even about Terri Schiavo...It was about politics, pure and simple. It was reported on the news this morning that a memo circulated amongst congressional republicans stating that this case was essentially a political goldmine for republicans, particuilarly since one House republican was facing a contested election and could benefit from this issue. But what I want to know is where the concern of these sanctimonious, self-righteous twits was a year ago...? Two years age...? Seven years ago...? It was nowhere to be found. It wasn't until they thought they could get some political mileage out of it that they did anything.

And listening to Dubbyuh spout his hypocritical nonsense about "...our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life..." had me choking on my coffee this morning. This coming from a man who, as Governor of Texas, presided over more executions than any governor in the last 50 years. And let's not forget his cheerful willingness to permit the execution of the mentally retarded, and his cruel mockery on "Larry King: Live", of a woman he permitted to be executed. Dubbyuh's mouthings about the sanctity of life are nothing more than calculated remarks to appeal to a selected audience, they have all the substance of a rapidly evaporating puddle on the hot asphalt of a parking lot.

Our congressional reps in both houses should be ashamed of themselves for so shamelessly politicizing this case. As far as I can tell, they have bought and paid for their places in hell. I hope they enjoy them.

And they said the war wasn't about oil...

Before Dubbyuh started his little adventure in Iraq, a number of folks were saying that the war was about oil. Now, it appears they were right, and that the plans were being laid as early as the spring of 2001. BBC "Newsnight", in co-operation with "Harper's Magazine" have unearthed evidence which was presented in a broadcast on 3/17/05.

The story points to a conflict between the neocons in Dubbyuh's administration, and "Big Oil" interests in league with the state department. This was essentially a conflict between the dogmatic neocons and the pragmatists in the oil industry and state. The neocons were pushing to "privatize" Iraq's oil fields in an attempt to break OPEC's back by flooding the market with oil and driving the prices down to a point that the cartel could not tolerate. This plan was given the go ahead even as Bagdhad fell. This plan helped fuel the insurgency by giving them a cause to rally supporters. "Look," they would say, "We're losing our country...our wealth...to foreigners who care nothing about what happens to us!"

This plan, however, was blocked by the oil industry which feared that the privatization of Iraq's oil fields would echo that of the Russian oil fields. In this process of privatization, US oil companies were not permitted to bid in the reserves. Instead a plan was put forth to set up an Iraqi state oil company in order to give US, and other companies access to Iraq's oil fields.

We have been lied to in every manner imaginable by the Bush administration in order to justify the war in Iraq. This should be the final nail in the coffin of this Administration and its policies. There are more than sufficient grounds for the impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Bush cabinet. It's time to clean house.

It's getting a bit drafty...Don't you think?

Uncle Sam on the prowl

By Katherine Stapp

NEW YORK - A couple of months ago, Kim Rosario found an improbable email message in her mail inbox.

The mother of a United States soldier, Rosario travels the country publicly denouncing Washington's policies in Iraq, and is a featured speaker at an upcoming rally in New York's Central Park to mark the second anniversary of the March 19, 2003, invasion.

"It was from the military, asking if I've ever considered a career in the navy," Rosario recalled. "I said I might if you send my son back from Iraq!"

Unintended irony aside, she believes the offer is a sign of the Pentagon's growing desperation to counter dwindling recruitment numbers - especially in the lower-income communities once viewed as fertile ground.

Reflecting the skepticism felt by many people of color toward the Iraq invasion, a study commissioned for the US Army last August concluded that "more African-Americans identify having to fight for a cause they don't support as a barrier to military service".

The true strength of an all volunteer military is making itself evident. Enlistment numbers are dropping, particularly in those areas which the military recruited heavily from before the invasion of Iraq...economically disadvantaged areas in cities and counties all across America. But with the pool of new recruits drying up, a back-door draft has been instituted through the use of stop-loss orders, extended deployments, calling up inactive reserves, and drawing ever more heavily on National Guard units which are having their own problems with recruitment and retention.

An all voluteer military will, over time, be unable to sustain manpower requirements for actions which are not supported by potential recruits. And, campaign promises to the contrary aside, the Bush administration will have to resort to a draft to provide the personel for its military adventurism abroad. And this will be the begining of the end of neocon control of the Republican party and this Administration, which can't come soon enough.

Those Wonderful Canadians!

Missile Counter-Attack

Thursday, March 3rd, 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY

Dear Condi,

I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

This truth will never reach the ears of the administration as they already know it and choose to ignore it. Truth is speaking to power, but in their hubris the Administration blithely ignores it.

They're both wrong

In reaching for political power, the "religious right" has abandoned their roots. All of the great progressive movements in America have had their roots in religion. From the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage,to the end of child labor, to the civil rights movment of the 50's and 60's...All were rooted in the concepts of justice preached by Jesus in the New Testament. The people who were at the fore-front of these movements lived their religion. For them it was a thing come alive to set us all free, regardless of our beliefs.

Contrast this with the mean-spirited, narrow, dogmatic and selective vision of the "religious right" which seeks political power to impose its vision from the top down rather than the bottom up, and that contrast is stark. Rather than an inclusive view which welcomes all, theirs is exclusive..."Believe as we do or we want no part of you!" Rather than seeking solutions with aim of the good of all, they seek to blame others for America's short-comings while providing no genuine solutions beyond the imposition of their dogma upon all. Theirs is nothing short of hubris laced with the language of persecution. Their grasp for power is bad politics and even worse theology.

The left is not blameless either. They have sought to turn religion into a private expression of one's values. They fail to understand that while religion is personal, it is never private. WHatever philosophical view we hold to, either implicitly or explicitly, affects how we experience and react to the world around us. It is their failure to acknowledge it that prevents them from establishing an effective dialogue with the many religious moderates in this country who resent the religious right's hijacking of Christianity to further their political agenda. And until they do this, we will continue to see the increasing polarization in this nation, centered on a few non-issues, rather than focusing on the broader, deeper problems that face us.

We stand at a cross-roads in America today. We can take the easy path and slide into the fascist state that we seem to be headed towards. Or we can roll up our sleeves, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hinu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, or what have you...Do the hard work and build a new America from the ground up, rooted in the common values of our beliefs and made a living thing to set us all free.

What would Jesus do?

As debate over the bankruptcy bill becomes more heated, I would ask our lawmakers to aske themselves, "What would Jesus do?"

Would he kill a homestead exemption for senior citizens? I think not.

Would he make it more difficult for those facing a medical crisis to get back on their feet? No, that doesn't sound like something he'd do.

Would he force women cast off by their spouses to pay debts which they haven't the means to repay? That doesn't sound like him either.

Would he deny the families of our soldiers, who are making huge sacrifices overseas, the ability to clear debts accrued because of that call to arms? No, I don't think that would be him either.

But these are all things that Republicans, those paragons of Christian morals and values, have done. And by golly Dubbyuh, who claims Jesus as his personal savior and role-model, has backed the Republicans to the hilt on this too. But the problem is Jesus is his personal savior and role model only when it's politically expedient. The rest of the time he's out selling his soul, and his ass, for a few shekels.

Face it folks, Jesus would not be a Republican, or a Democrat for that matter. He would be working for social justice for all, which is what his teachings in the new testament were all about. I ask our law makers to read the book of Matthew 25, 34-40. These few paragraphs are about social justice, and there is no justice in this bill. It is about political payback, not justice, and no protestations to the contrary can make it otherwise.

So, why don't you take a little time and call your congressional reps and ask them, "What would Jesus do?"

History Unremembered

On February 27th, an anniversary passed which has gone, for the most part, unremembered and unremarked.

It started when the government, in the midst of an economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist. Some, like Sefton Delmer - a London Daily Express reporter on the scene - say they certainly did not, while others, like William Shirer, suggest they did.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted.

He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.

His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones. - Common Dreams

No, it isn't George W. Bush...But the pattern is disturbingly similar.

I once had a patient whose family was amongst the powerbrokers of pre-WW II Germany, his father had been slain in the "Night of the Long-Knives", Hitler's purging of his opposition. He saw it all, from the burning of the Reichstag, through Hitler's ascendancy to power, through the horrors of WW II, through internment as a German POW.

We didn't talk much prior to the Fall of the World Trade Center. Afterwards though, we began to talk. He spoke of how similar the political events following the Fall were to those which followed on the heels of the burning of the Reichstag. He spoke of how the media lapped up Goerring's propaganda in much the same way the US media now laps up, as if it were manna from heaven, every last gobbet of excrement the Bush administration spews forth. He spoke of how Bush's use of religious language and imagery was like that used by Hitler to justify his actions. "Gott mitt uns."...God is with us.

During that period of history America and Germany, both in dire economic straights, took different courses. Hitler rewared his wealthy supporters with more wealth...allied himself with industry to the detriment of the average person...busted unions...quashed dissent...engaged in ceasless and aggressive nationalistic rhetoric...built up the economy on a mountain of debt and unchecked spending on war.

The US followed a different course with minimum wage laws...aggressive enforcement of anti-trusr laws...increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy...created Social Security...and the WPA to employ hundreds of thousands of Americans to rebuild and renew America's infrastructure.

History gives us a perspective that they didn't have then. We have seen where each path takes us, and we are again at a crossroads. The choice is ours, which course shall we take?

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana

Let's put the Gerrymander on the endagered species list...

Four members of Tom DeLay's Texas based PAC, TrmPAC, stand indicted of violations of campaign finance laws. More recently, five Texas democrats are suing TrmPAC for violations of Texas campaign law. These are the most visible symptoms of a fatal flaw in US election laws. That being that the majority political parties decide how to re-apportion voters and set the boundaries of legislative districts.

The whole stink in Texas is the result of Tommy's drive to seat a majority republican Texas legislature and then draw up new legislative boundaries which favored republicans, which they did. But there is a simple solution...

What is required is a Constitutional Amendment which takes the power to redraw legilative districts and put this power in the hands of a non-partisan commission in each state. After each decennial census, this board would be appointed and redraw legislative districts on the basis of, not party affiliation, but population...What a novel concept. This would provide for more representative legislatures on both the state and federal levels. This would, in turn, result in a government which, I believe, would be more in line with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

Gerrymander - "Gerrymander refers to the drawing of boundaries of legislative districts to benefit one party or group and handicap another. Although the practice dates back to the colonial period, its name is derived from Elbridge Gerry, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a nonsigning delegate to the Federal Convention of 1787, and a leader of the Jeffersonian Republican party."

Also see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/national/28delay.html

Whaaaat...?

Listening to Dubbyuh chide Putin about backsliding on "...democracy and the rule of law..." almost had me choking on my coffee this morning. If ever there was someone who needed upbraiding and an education into the meaning of democratic values, it is Dubbyuh.

His criticism of Putin for limiting freedom of the press in Russia rings rather hollow in the face of Dubbyuh's desire for a pliable and complacent news media in this country. And while Dubbyuh may not be issuing executive orders limiting the press, his campaign backers, many of whom own major news outlets are quasing editorial dissent. Although, the political appointees to the board of PBS seem to be doing a splendid job of gutting that media outlet of anything but the party line.

As for democracy and the rule of law, the Reichpublican...er...Republican party seems to be of the mind that they are above the law and can do anything they wish. All protestations to the contrary aside, their moral values on this issue are more than a little lacking. Their record on democracy is more than a little questionable as well. Republican support for a verifiable paper audit trail for electronic voting systems is tepid, at best. Such systems were used in Nevada in 2004, contrary to the protestations of folks from Diebold, and others that it wa not feasible to do so. In fact, the most hard-core gambler in the sleaziest gambling-hell in Vegas has more and greater protections in place on gaming machines than the nation does for their voting machines.

So, Dubbyuh, save the hypocrisy for someone who will buy it. It certainly isn't me, and the increasing number of Americans who aren't buying your crap. BTW If you can't push your Social Security "reform" through, are we going to start haveing terror threat alerts again so you can sneak it through? Ya pig.

Coming home to roost...

At least the chickens from the Bush administration's economic policies are. With Asian markets already saturated by US debt, South Korea announced that it was seeking to diversify its holdings in non-dollar equities. This in the face of record US trade and budget deficits and an already weak dollar. The net result was a drop in US bond prices with a rise in the yields. Down the road, this will result in higher consumer interest rates at a time when already over-stretched US borrowers can ill afford it. Also of note here is that more European central banks are starting to shift their holdings from dollar to euros

Of course, this will likely result in a whole slew of new bankruptcies. And, if the new bankruptcty bill makes it out of the House and Senate, otherwise responsible folks will be facing years of indentured servitude to their creditors when they default on their debt due to medical emergencies, job loss or divorce. But the little fact that the majority of bankruptcies are the result of these causes has done little to deter the bills passage through committee...So much for compassionate conservatism. If creditors want to limit their losses, they need to stop extending credit to dead-beats. Can you say "responsible lending"...? I knew you could.

So, I hope you see that the fiscal irresponsiblity of the Bush administration has broad and far reaching consequences, both at home and abroad. My wife and I are going to be re-financing out of our ARM for a fixed rate mortgage in May, I would suggest anyone else with an ARM do the same.

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4287413.stm

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6934a1a6-8541-11d9-a172-00000e2511c8.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_bill.html