A Little Left Of Nowhere

Pythonesque!

2007-03-15T23:20:00.000-07:00

That is the term that comes to mind when thinking of the current US Attorney Firing scandal. Gonzalez, Rove, the White House et al consistently denying one allegation after another only to release documents that prove the contrary. Then they quickly invent some new spin explaining how they weren't directly involved until another email or memo or the like surfaces that is contrary to what they just said . Over and over this cycle repeats. It reminds me of any of anumber of Monty Python sketches where one character stubbornly insists on recognizing reality where the other steadfastly denies reality in the hope that the first will come round to his way of thinking just to make things easier. The pet shop sketch leaps to mind. For those of you not familiar with this sketch a piece of it (rather inaccurately transcribed) follows:

John Cleese: (speaking to a pet shop clerk holding a cage containing a rather dead parrot) This parrot that I purchased not half an hour ago is dead.

Michael Palin: No it tisn't

JC: Look at it it is bereft of life.

MP: no it isn't it's pining for the Fjords.

JC:Pining for the Fjords?

MP: Yep, 'e's a Norwegian Blue. Beautiful Birds they are.

JC: He's not pinin for anything he is an EX PARROT. I took the liberty of examining him and the only reason he was on the perch was because you nailed him there.

MP: I had to or else he'd fly away.

You get the picture... (and before any Python fans start , I know that's not exactly how it goes I was going for the spirit of the bit.)

Picture it like this.

Public: You fired those attorneys for political reasons after you promised you'd never do that.

Alberto Gonzales: No I didn't

Public: But the New Mexico Senators admitted to calling USA Iglesias and asking about the Indictment and also about calling the White House to get him fired.

AG: But I didn't Know about any of that.

P: But here's this document that says your deputy did it aand you were briefed.

AG: Ummm, OK. But Ummm... That was after it was already decided on.

P: But here's this other document that says you were breifed before you were even sworn in.

AG...Ummm. But Apart from that, I wasn't involved.

P: But there's this email....

Again you get the picture. If this weren't for real it would be hilarious. But it is real so instead it's creepy and tragic.

So Long Constitution It Was Nice While It Lasted

2006-09-30T10:33:00.000-07:00

Over at the Undernews there is an article on the 'torture bill' that recently passed congress. Torture isn't the biggest deal here. Don't get me wrong it is a big deal just not the biggest.

Personally I am appalled that we, as a country, were even considering legalizing torture, let alone actually passing it. That our politicians are discussing whether or not or how much we can torture or which 'techniques' we can use is a new low for this country. We have with this bill undone decades of international agreement and essentially given the rest of the world the right and reason to torture Americans. Positively shameful.

Even so, the torture issue is not the biggest turd in the toilet where this bill came from. This bill gave the president the right to declare ANYONE an unlawful enemy combatant. Once again, this bill gave the president the right to declare ANYONE an unlawful enemy combatant. Not just Iraqis, ANYONE. Not just Arabs, ANYONE. Not just foreigners, ANYONE. Not just immigrants, ANYONE. Get the picture? The President of the United States of America can, when this bill becomes law, declare John Jones, American Born and lived here all his life, church goer, mechanic, hard working father, an enemy combatant. At that point he can be arrested and held for the rest of his life without bail, without a trial, without any chance to contest his imprisonment. He can be tortured and if he ever is brought to trial he cannot see the evidence against him, and he cannot have his own attorney. This sounds like a third world dictatorship to me, not unlike Argentina and Chile not so long ago.

But, you say, surely there must be some standards for what constitutes an enemy combatant. Well there will be, but that will be the sole discretion of the President. Oh, and they will be secret. The President never has to reveal what those standards are, according to this bill. And there is one more bit to make things more distasteful. If the President should be uncomfortable with making people 'disappear' and deciding who should be tortured, he can confer this ability to anyone he wishes. Put another way if the President has too many scruples he can simply hand this off to some without any and get himself some plausible deniability.

So folks please place your rights and freedom in the receptacles located by the exits You may keep your hope for what good it will do you.

By the way that large sucking sound was Democracy going down the tubes.

Mark Foley Resigns

2006-09-29T20:08:00.000-07:00

I have some mixed emotions about the Mark Foley(R-FL) resignation. Foley is the representative for my part of Florida and while I had hoped he would lose his re-election bid I never thought he would go down in flames like this.

His voting record is about as close to diametrically opposed to my views as possible and his responses to emails were always form letters. I always read them and they were all identical. That told me he didn't give a damn what his constituents thought. I am gald he is gone but I still really wish it hadn't ended this way. He apparently has done some VERY bad things as reported by ABC News ( I found this courtesy of Talking Points Memo they reported on it here and here ).

When I first read the emails yesterday I thought they aren't that bad. As I thought about it more though I pondered what if my fifteen yr old son ( and yes I have one) was getting emails like this from a 54 yr old stranger? I would certainly be concerned. Then today the rest of the story breaks and after reading the transcript at ABC I was sickened.

He never really represented me anyway, now he doesn't legally represent me either. I suppose I should feel glad we got this pedophile and another Rubber Stamp Republicn out of office in one fell swoop. After the damage he's has done to this minor and his own family with these actions it just isn't that easy.

It's been a While

2006-09-29T20:07:00.000-07:00

Wow, those last two posts have been sitting as drafts for about ten months! It doesn't seem like that long although I knew it had been a while.

UNDERNEWS

2005-12-07T13:43:00.000-08:00

UNDERNEWS: "FCC SAYS INTERNET USE MUST MEET NEEDS OF FBI, NOT FIRST AMENDMENT

DECLAN MCCULLAGH, CNET - The Federal Communications Commission thinks you have the right to use software on your computer only if the FBI approves. In an obscure 'policy' document released around 9 p.m. ET last Friday, the FCC announced this remarkable decision. According to the three-page document, to preserve the openness that characterizes today's Internet, 'consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.' Read the last seven words again.

The FCC didn't offer much in the way of clarification. But the clearest reading of the pronouncement is that some unelected bureaucrats at the commission have decreed that Americans don't have the right to use software such as Skype or PGPfone if it doesn't support mandatory backdoors for wiretapping. (That interpretation was confirmed by an FCC spokesman on Monday, who asked not to be identified by name. Also, the announcement came at the same time as the FCC posted its wiretapping rules for Internet telephony.)

Nowhere does the commission say how it jibes this official pronouncement with, say, the First Amendment's right to speak freely, not to mention the limited powers granted the federal government by the U.S. Constitution."

How to Avoid Being Blog Bashed

2005-11-03T13:02:00.000-08:00

Jim Maule Villanova University School of Law

1. Create quality products and services.

2. Sell what you advertise.

3. Make certain your products and services do what they claim to do.

4. Fully test and study your products and services before offering them
for sale.

5. Disclose all risks posed to purchasers of your products and services.

6. Tell the truth.

7. Fulfill your warranty promises.

8. Don't cut corners.

9. Comply with all applicable laws and regulations.

10. Don't try to buy influence.

Follow those principles and the bloggers won't have any reason to bash
nor will they have anything or anyone to bash.

Always low ethics , Always.

2005-11-02T19:49:00.000-08:00

And the folks at WalMart wonder why some of us are getting wary of them...

STEVEN GREENHOUSE AND MICHAEL BARBARO, NY TIMES - An internal memo sent to Wal-Mart's board of directors proposes numerous ways to hold down spending on health care and other benefits while seeking to minimize damage to the retailer's reputation. Among the recommendations are hiring more part-time workers and discouraging unhealthy people from working at Wal-Mart.

In the memorandum, M. Susan Chambers, Wal-Mart's executive vice president for benefits, also recommends reducing 401(k) contributions and wooing younger, and presumably healthier, workers by offering education benefits. The memo voices concern that workers with seven years' seniority earn more than workers with one year's seniority, but are no more productive. To discourage unhealthy job applicants, Ms. Chambers suggests that Wal-Mart arrange for "all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g., all cashiers do some cart-gathering)."

The memo acknowledged that Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, had to walk a fine line in restraining benefit costs because critics had attacked it for being stingy on wages and health coverage. Ms. Chambers acknowledged that 46 percent of the children of Wal-Mart's 1.33 million United States employees were uninsured or on Medicaid. . .

They draw criticism because they keep telling us how wonderful they are then circulate memos like that one. Asses! (Pardon my French.)(Yes, I know it's not really French.)

Gmail - UNDERNEWS OCT 31 T

2005-11-01T06:48:00.000-08:00

The Problem, Fewer people can afford to feed themselves and their families since Bush took office.

HUNGER IN AMERICA UP 43% IN PAST FIVE YEARS SCIENCE DAILY - Hunger in American households has risen by 43 percent over the last five years, according to an analysis of US Department of Agriculture) data. The analysis, completed by the Center on Hunger and Poverty at Brandeis University, shows that more than 7 million people have joined the ranks of the hungry since 1999. The USDA report, Household Food Security in the United States, 2004, says that 38.2 million Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food insecurity, including nearly 14 million children. That figure is up from 31 million Americans in 1999. California, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma and South Carolina all have food insecurity and hunger rates that are significantly higher than the national average. The lone bright spot in the nation is Oregon. Once considered to have the worst hunger in the country, Oregon has shown significant decreases in food insecurity and hunger since 1999-2001. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051029093925.htm

So, what does the GOP do? Show some of that 'Compassionate Conservatism' we heard so much about (but have not seen)? No apparently a 43% increase in hunger isn't big enough. Apparently they want more hunger. (I suppose it builds character or something).

GOP MOVES TO SLASH FOOD STAMPS, SCHOOL LUNCHES LIBBY QUAID, ASSOCIATED PRESS - The House Agriculture Committee approved budget cuts Friday that would take food stamps away from an estimated 300,000 people and could cut off school lunches and breakfasts for 40,000 children. The action came as the government reported that the number of people who are hungry because they can't afford to buy enough food rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of 7 million in five years. The number represents nearly 12 percent of U.S. households. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/food_farm_programs

And just in case cutting school lunches and food stamps does not do the trick...

SENATE VOTES DOWN FIRST MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE IN EIGHT YEARS HELEN THOMAS, HEARST NEWS - U.S. senators -- who draw salaries of $162,100 a year and enjoy a raft of perks -- have rejected a minimum wage hike from $5.15 an hour to $6.25 for blue-collar workers. The proposed increase was sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and turned down in the Senate by a vote of 51 against the boost and 49 in favor. . . All the Democrats voted for the wage boost. All the negative votes were cast by Republicans. Four Republicans voted for it. Three of the four are running for reelection and were probably worried about how voters would react if they knew that their well-heeled senators had turned down a pittance of an increase in the salaries of the lowest paid workers in the country. The minimum wage was last increased in 1997. http://www.wesh.com/helenthomas/5183628/detail.html

But some of our politicians do know right from wrong an feel obligated to do something about it...

LABOR -- ADMINISTRATION REVERSES DAVIS-BACON SUSPENSION: In the immediate wake of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush issued an executive order to suspend the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, which requires federal contractors to pay at least the prevailing wages in the area where the work is being conducted. Yesterday, the administration reversed course, announcing it will reinstate the Davis Bacon rules on November 8. The shift comes days after Rep. George Miller (D-CA) announced that he would use an obscure law to force a congressional vote on the act's suspension early next month. Miller had strong bipartisan support, and was likely to win the vote. He cheered the White House reversal yesterday: "This wage cut was a mistake from the beginning and never should have been ordered. But today's news is a victory for workers in the Gulf Coast and all over America."

Even though the president tries to screw us over via executive order (which doesn't require a vote) a Representative finds the loophole that restores democracy. Thank you Rep. George Miller.

Patriot Act sneakiness again.

2005-10-27T06:37:00.000-07:00

Regardless of your position on the death penalty, we have a jury system in this country for a reason. Now the neo-cons want to circumvent that when the jury doesn't give the result they want.

This is the proverbial slippery slope folks, say goodbye to another constitutional right. Thanks again to the UNDERNEWS for being there when it counts.

UNDERNEWS: GOP WANTS TO FORCE DEATH PENALTY EVEN WHEN JURY CAN'T AGREE: "NY TIMES - If all 12 members of a jury in a capital case in federal court cannot agree on whether to impose the death penalty, a convicted defendant is automatically sentenced to life in prison. But that may be about to change. A little-noticed provision in the House bill that reauthorized the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act would allow federal prosecutors further attempts at a death sentence if a capital jury deadlocks on the punishment. So long as at least one juror voted for death, prosecutors could empanel a new sentencing jury and argue again that execution was warranted. The Senate bill does not contain the provision, and representatives of both chambers will soon meet to discuss the differences between the two measures and potential compromises."

Well much like the rest of the Patriot act this serves to fulfill the fantasies neo-con despot wannabes while doing nothing good for America. Is it 2006 yet?

OK Cupid Politics test

2005-10-26T19:51:00.000-07:00

Here's how I did....

You are a
Social Liberal
(80% permissive)

and an...
Economic Liberal
(10% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Socialist

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Plame Fallout and Harriet Miers

2005-10-25T17:37:00.000-07:00

Aside from the illegality of exposing a CIA agent's cover there are other concerns Showing up from the Plame Leak. One of the notable side stories underscores what was said in the Downing Street Minutes...

CIA leak illustrates selective use of intelligence on Iraq
BY JONATHAN S. LANDAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The grand jury probe into the leak of a covert CIA officer's name has opened a new window into how the Bush administration used intelligence from dubious sources to make a case for a pre-emptive war and discarded information that undercut its rationale for attacking Iraq.

CIA officer Valerie Plame was outed in an apparent attempt to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, after he challenged President Bush's allegation in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy uranium for nuclear weapons from the African nation of Niger.

As for the hows and whens...

The State of the Union speech was one of a number of instances in which Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and their aides ignored the qualms of intelligence professionals and instead relied on the claims of Iraqi defectors and other suspect sources or, in the case of Niger, the crudely forged documents.

Like the Niger allegation, almost all of the administration's claims that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had to be ousted before he could develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, use them against America or give them to al-Qaida terrorists have turned out to be false. No such weapons or programs have been found, and several official inquiries have concluded that there was no cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Here's How it all ties together...

THE EARLY CASE FOR WAR

The White House launched its public campaign to build support for a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in August 2002.

Top aides led by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and known as the White House Iraq Group directed the effort, according to current and former U.S. officials who requested anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.

The group included I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, and Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, who are at the center of the Plame probe.

Other members were then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy and now successor, Stephen J. Hadley, White House communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkerson and legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio.

The Iraqi National Congress, an exile opposition group whose leader, Ahmad Chalabi, was close to Cheney and others, had begun feeding Western reporters Iraqi defectors' tales that Saddam was training Islamic extremists to hit U.S. targets and hiding banned weapons shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The INC, which was deeply distrusted by the State Department, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA, piped the same information into Cheney's office and the Pentagon, according to a June 2002 letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee from the group's Washington spokesman.

In an Aug. 26, 2002, speech, Cheney highlighted the main themes of the administration's case for war.

Iraq, he charged, was "amassing" chemical and biological weapons, and "many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon" and could give them to terrorists.

There was no solid U.S. intelligence to support his assertions, and no such finding by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversaw the destruction of Saddam's pre-1991 Gulf War nuclear weapons program.

U.S. intelligence had no evidence of any alliance between Iraq and al-Qaida, and many analysts doubted that Saddam would give such weapons to Islamic extremists.

Then there were...

THE ALUMINUM TUBES

On Sept. 8, 2002, The New York Times quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying that Iraq had tried "to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes" believed to be intended for centrifuges, devices that enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

The story quoted an unnamed senior administration official as saying that "nuclear weapons are his (Saddam's) hole card" and that delaying his overthrow would make him "harder ... to deal with."

The story reinforced the Bush administration's charge that the United States couldn't wait for proof that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.

Its appearance in the nation's most influential paper also gave Cheney and Rice an opportunity to discuss the matter the same day on the Sunday television talk shows. They could discuss the article, but otherwise they wouldn't have been able to talk about classified intelligence in public.

"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon," Bush said to the U.N. General Assembly five days later.

But again a problem with the intel. That old nagging "Truth" thing keeps getting in the way.

But after consulting U.S. nuclear laboratories, the Department of Energy and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research concluded that the tubes were most likely for ground-to-ground rockets, not for centrifuges.

The International Atomic Energy Agency later reached the same conclusion.

Facts be damned we WILL invade Iraq. Folks we have been lied to in a BIG way. Speaking of not being forthright Bush has refused to release Harriet Miers record. This is like going to a used car lot and being denied a test drive but having the salesman insist you sign the contract anyway. Read On...

Bush refuses to hand over Miers documents / Nominee's chances for confirmation appear in jeopardy: "Washington -- President Bush rejected requests coming from Republican as well as Democratic lawmakers to produce documents about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' work as White House counsel, as conservatives Monday began a formal campaign to force her withdrawal.

The brewing clash between Bush and Senate Republicans over White House documents marks the latest downturn for an embattled nomination that has deeply demoralized Bush's conservative base and raises the prospect that Miers could be defeated by her own party.

'People can learn about Harriet Miers through hearings,' Bush said, speaking briefly to reporters after a Cabinet meeting, 'but we are not going to destroy this business about people being able to walk in the Oval Office and say, 'Mr. President, here's my advice to you, here's what I think is important.' And that's not only important for this president, it's important for future presidents.'

The Presnit refuses to give full disclosure on his nominees. Not good. The Nominee is going down. Note to Ms Miers: Don't pack your office up yet, In fact don't pack at all.

A little about the left and religion

2005-10-21T13:01:00.000-07:00

Recently I have run across several progressive Humanist and/or Atheists who seem offended by the notion that some folks dare to criticise them for their attitude toward Christians. With a hearty serving of righteous indignation they complain about Christians being the ones who are bigoted and trying to force their religion on allwho are not Christian. While I agree there are many Christians who do just that and that they are becoming dangerous as some of them have connections to people in power, not all Christians are like that. In fact most are not. Below is my response to just such a post that referred to Christianity as a Cult.

Perhaps it is their 'Cult'. I would submit some of those believe so unwaveringly they are all but lost to any other viewpoint. There are however, many that are faced with a multitude of decisions and issues, would it not be better to communicate our position by showing them that we are different from our opponents by not resorting to name calling or belittling them or their beliefs? I imagine if you wish to sway their opinion of the right wing it might be better to show them that there is room for them on the left rather than tellng them to abandon all they have believed in because in your belief theirs is wrong. Sounds a bit like any two religions arguing about their respective beliefs. Atheism is a belief too. A belief that their is no god (and by the way just as unprovable as the belief that there is a god). You chose your belief let them choose theirs. Welcome their point of view and work with it. The preferred disavowment and debasement of all things religious eliminates the majority of the country from the start. Dooming your position to failure (unless the non believers can somehow eliminate elections). Don't misunderstand I have a great desire to see the Robertsons and Falwells of this country (and the world for that matter) fall from favor and return to whatever dark place they emerged from. They are, in fact, truly about power. Religion is just the means to their end. Also have no doubt that I am an avid supporter of Church-State separation. Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli clearly spells out the intentions of our founding fathers if the First amendment wasn't clear enough (apparently for some, especially on the right, it wasn't). There are a great many well meaning Christians who waver on which party or approach the would support. Progressives would do better to welcome them than issue blanket condemnations of them.

Also I would add as I hinted at in my response there are many Atheists who try to force their beliefs on others. It usually takes the form of ridicule and belittlement (on the more benign end) or long complicated lectures and attempts to prove the non existance of God (an impossibility) (on the more malicious end). Make no mistake Atheism is a belief system too just as any other religion. And its belief comes from an unswerving belief that what others sometimes see as evidence of the divine is evidence of nothing. Sometimes they are right. Try as they might however there is no way to prove that God (or anything else) does not exist, only that there is no verifiable evidence that they do.

Iran, Syria and Liberals Oh My!

2005-10-19T10:05:00.000-07:00

Let's Start off today with some Rice.

CNN.com - Rice: U.S. will defeat insurgency, rebuild Iraq - Oct 19, 2005: "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday defended U.S. policy in Iraq amid criticism from lawmakers demanding a plan to bring troops home.

In her first appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since February, Rice said the U.S. goals in Iraq are to break the back of the insurgency, keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for Islamic extremism, turn the corner economically and become a democratic example for the entire Middle East.

She outlined a strategy to clear the toughest areas of insurgents, secure them as a sanctuary from violence and 'build durable national Iraqi institutions,' which she insisted would 'assure victory.'

'Our strategy is to clear, hold and build,' she told senators. 'The enemy's strategy is to infect, terrorize and pull down.'

The Afghanistan model

The WHAT!!! Does that mean we are going to crochet blankets or turn Iraq into a narco-state? If the latter do we chalk up a win in the Terror War AND a loss in the Drug War?

Rice said the Bush administration would 'restructure' part of its mission on a model the United States found successful in Afghanistan, where diplomats and reconstruction workers are embedded with the military.

'Provincial reconstruction teams' made up of civilian and military personnel will work together to clear out insurgents, train police, set up courts and help the government establish basic services, Rice said. The first of these new teams will begin work next month.

But the hearing often turned contentious, with Rice facing tough questioning from senators on both sides of the aisle, looking for a timetable to win the peace and begin withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Last I checked Afghanistan was spiraling into becoming a narco-state and the Taliban was regaining some of its former power. In what way was Afghanistan a success for the US?

Timetables debated

Rice refused to give a timeline for U.S. withdrawal but called Iraqi forces' assumption of responsibility for some of the toughest areas in Iraq 'good benchmarks'

But the Republican committee chair, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, countered that 'the American people need to more fully understand the basis upon which our troops are likely to come home.'

'We are engaged in a difficult mission in Iraq and the president and Congress must be clear with the American people about the stakes involved and the difficulties yet to come," he said.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said that nobody was suggesting an immediate pullout of U.S. troops, but more details on the Bush administration's plan to win the peace and begin withdrawing troops were needed.

"What's the plan, Stan? Tell us," Biden said. "We are not setting timetables and saying cut and run. We are saying give us a plan."

Asked pointedly whether the United States would still have troops in Iraq five or 10 years from now, Rice said, "I think that even to try and speculate on how many years from now there will be a certain number of American forces is not appropriate.

"I don't know how to speculate about what will happen 10 years from now, but I do believe that we are moving on a course on which Iraqi security forces are rather rapidly able to take care of their own security concerns."

Apparently we'll be done when the prez says we're done.

Syria and Iran

She reiterated U.S. criticism of Iraq's neighbors Syria and Iran, who she said need to take steps to stop fighters from entering Iraq.

"Syria and, indeed, Iran must decide whether they wish to side with the cause of war or with the cause of peace," she said.

While Rice said the United States is continuing to put diplomatic pressure on Syria to stem the flow of insurgents, the military option remains on the table. The United States also wants Syria to stop supporting Palestinian extremist groups and end its presence in Lebanon.

Rice said the United States is examining whether its ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, should hold diplomatic talks with Iranian officials about the situation in Iraq, just as he did during the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Iran and Syria have been in the plans for a while as you know if you go just a step or two beyond the MSM to get your news. Now the government is officially saying it. Wait for official word on a draft in the not too distant future. (watch the terminology though as the Republicans don't like the D-word.

'Spin of false expectations'

In response to her comments that a free Iraq would "be at the heart of a different kind of Middle East" and allow the United States to defeat the ideology of hatred and extremism threatening it, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, accused Rice of "rewriting history."

Boxer said the Bush administration's war on terror was supposed to be about going after the terrorists that threatened the United States after the September 11 attacks, not "rebuilding the Middle East."

"Our country is sick at heart with the spin of false expectations," she told Rice.

The secretary also faced criticism from senators for failing to appear before the committee for so many months. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, pointed out that if Rice made time to appear on Sunday morning talk shows, she could make herself available to address Congress about a policy that is costing the lives of U.S. soldiers and Iraqis and "draining our treasury substantially."

"This is just unacceptable we go this length of time without discussing this in full and in the public," Dodd said.

It is nice to see our senate so worked up about something . Demand answers folks. We want them, We need them, and we deserve them.

Nest an excerpt from and interview with Douglass Massey. The man has some GOOD ideas. Read on.

AlterNet: Start Making Sense: Return of the 'L' Word: An Interview with Douglas Massey: "Return of the 'L' Word: An Interview with Douglas Massey By Bradford Plumer, MotherJones.com. Posted August 16, 2005.
Liberals need a vision for the new century, says Douglas Massey.

MJ: Let's shift over to the political landscape. You see the conservative movement today as being spearheaded by what you call a variety of fundamentalisms. Can you explain what those are?

DM: Yeah, I did a lot of reading trying to understand fundamentalism, and there was one interesting scholar I ran acrossÂMartin Marty of the Divinity School at the University of ChicagoÂwho spent more than a decade studying fundamentalisms around the world. Basically fundamentalism is not about religion, it's a political movement that often uses religion for political purposes. And fundamentalists are essentially all the same, whether you're talking Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims, Christians, Jews. They selectively draw from sacred texts to achieve political goals in the modern world. And they're essentially engaged in a war against modernism, against what has been accomplished through the modern liberal political economyÂwhich includes the liberation of women, the end of the subordination of minorities, the end of privilege, all those things really disturb many fundamentalists. And they turn to religion as a way of marshalling their forces to attack all these things. So it's not about religion at all. And after that, I started seeing other types of fundamentalism in our political culture. There are the constitutional fundamentalists who now dominate our judiciary, and think that the Constitution was basically a sacred document, that we have to go back to what the Founding Fathers were thinking at the time they wrote it, and not put anything else into it. I find that appalling given that the majority of people who wrote the Constitution were slaveholders, and their goal was to create a document that somehow finessed the issue of servitude, and would allow slavery to exist in a society that was otherwise dedicated to liberty. Then there are a variety of other fundamentalists, including the Platonic fundamentalists who controlled our foreign policy in Bush's first term, the followers of Leo Strauss who have a bizarre notion that truth was revealed through the ancient classics and that careful study of those works will lead to enlightenment so that you can lead the masses. It's bizarre.

MJ: But certainly these varieties of fundamentalism don't comprise the whole of the Republican coalition?

DM: No, there are a bunch of self-interested actors too, what I call the crony capitalists who are basically making tons of money by transferring public wealth into private coffers: the most notorious of which include the infamous Carlisle Group, Halliburton, the private security firms in Iraq. These aren't people who believe in free markets, they believe in the private exploitation of public resources, and they'll do as much of it as they can get away with. And then are neo-confederates in the Republican Party who want to restore white power, and are not very subtle about it. You have the former Attorney General of the United States, John Ashcroft, giving interviews to Southern Partisan and lauding the accomplishments of Jefferson Davis. And then Trent Lott says that the principles of the Republican Party are the principles of Jefferson Davis. I mean, Abraham Lincoln must be rolling in his grave. Why do Democrats just let that pass? Why is any of this acceptable?

Indeed why do we let it pass? I have been hoping for someone to take the lead in the dems for some time now.

News For A Day

2005-10-18T11:54:00.000-07:00

A bit of a mixed bag starting with...

CONSERVATISM -- REAGAN AIDE BRUCE BARTLETT FIRED FOR CRITICIZING BUSH: "In the latest sign of the deepening split among conservatives over how far to go in challenging President Bush," conservative commentator Bruce Bartlett was dismissed yesterday as a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), a prominent conservative research group based in Dallas. Bartlett is a former White House aide under President Reagan and the first President Bush, and had been with the Center for 10 years. The dismissal came after Bartlett supplied NCPA president John C. Goodman with the manuscript of his forthcoming book, "The Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." In his next column, to be published on Wednesday, "Mr. Bartlett wrote that it is dawning on many conservatives 'that George W. Bush is not one of them and never has been,'" the New York Times reports.

Which Reagan legacy was that HUGE military spending and a deficit to go with it? Union Busting? Tax breaks for people and corporations that don't need them? All seem to be alive and well under Bush II's regime...

Now onto DMCA,RIAA and Music....

UNDERNEWS: WOMAN COUNTERSUES RIAA: "RYAN PAUL, ARSTECHNICA - There are two commodities that the RIAA has in great abundance: cash, and consumer resentment. Since the start of its concerted legal assault on digital media piracy, the RIAA has become a veritable pariah... Tanya Anderson, a 42 year old disabled single mother from Oregon, has filed a countersuit against the RIAA, in which she claims that the organization engaged in numerous crimes, including fraud, deceptive business practices, and racketeering. In addition, she claims that RIAA has been 'abusing the federal court judicial system for the purpose of waging a public relations and public threat campaign targeting digital file sharing activities.'

... According to Anderson, shortly after she received notice of the suit, she was contacted by the Settlement Support Center, which claimed that a company called Media Sentry illegally infiltrated her computer and found evidence of copyright infringement. Anderson, who has no interest in gangster rap, contested the accusation and even requested that the Settlement Support Center inspect her computer to verify her innocence.

Okay, but doesn't it get freaky? I mean what's a good rock'n'roll story if something doesn't get freaky?

Brace yourselves, this is where it really starts to get freaky.

There we go! Yeah!

In her countersuit, Anderson claims that the Settlement Support Center acknowledged the probability of her innocence, but informed her that should she refuse to settle, the RIAA would proceed with a suit in order to discourage others from attempting to defend themselves against unwarranted litigation.

That 'S a bit freaky but sounds more like just plain WRONG!

Lets have a look at the countersuit:

Despite knowing that infringing activity was not observed, the record companies used the threat of expensive and intrusive litigation as a tool to coerce Ms. Andersen to pay many thousands of dollars for an obligation she did not owe. The record companies pursued their collection activities and this lawsuit for the primary purpose of threatening Ms. Andersen (and many others) as part of its public relations campaign targeting electronic file sharing.

Anderson isn't the only one crying foul. Employees of Kim's Video and Music Store in New York claim that they were wrongfully arrested in June on bogus piracy charges when New York Police Department officials and RIAA representatives raided the store. Econoculture, a web site devoted to the defense of modern music culture, has a chilling article containing numerous allegations of egregiously unlawful behavior purportedly perpetrated by the RIAA and law enforcement agents.

According to the article, the police officers may have confiscated CD-R discs legally produced and burned by independent artists, simply because the discs did not look like the legitimate, recorded CDs distributed by RIAA member companies:

RIAA regional officer Kenneth Rivera, who worked as an undercover agent on the Kim's case, identified the store's mix tapes and CDs as piratical, testifying in an affidavit that they "listed unfamiliar company names, do not display the name of the owner of the copyright, have packaging inferior in quality when compared with legitimate discs," and because "many are recorded on CD-R media. Legitimate recordings released by RIAA member companies do not release their recording on CD-R format."

Okay these folks are just out of hand. I mean garage bands record on CD-r and by the way as soon as you create an original work you own the copyright to it (whether you register it or not).

And Finally the Religious Right...

CHRIS HEDGES, THEOCRACY WATCH, 2004 - Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told us that when we were his age, he was then close to 80, we would all be fighting the 'Christian fascists.' The warning, given to me 25 years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and televangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts at taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global, Christian empire. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of those who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors had found a mask for fascism in the pages of the Bible.

This is one of the thing that bothers me most about the current regime and their friends. A few years ago people who were raving about how fascist and evil these people are sounded like nuts, now they are making sense and I am one of them! It's a bit frightening but so is what is happening to this country.

USATODAY.com - CIA review faults prewar plans

2005-10-12T10:08:00.000-07:00

Intertesting that the truth comes out in little bits and pieces. This information is SOOOOO obvious yet the administration denies it 'Vehemently'.

CIA review faults prewar plans
By John Diamond, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — A newly released report published by the CIA rebukes the Bush administration for not paying enough attention to prewar intelligence that predicted the factional rivalries now threatening to split Iraq.

Policymakers worried more about making the case for the war, particularly the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, than planning for the aftermath, the report says. The report was written by a team of four former CIA analysts led by former deputy CIA director Richard Kerr.

"In an ironic twist, the policy community was receptive to technical intelligence (the weapons program), where the analysis was wrong, but apparently paid little attention to intelligence on cultural and political issues (post-Saddam Iraq), where the analysis was right," they write.

White House spokesman Fred Jones said Tuesday that the administration considered many scenarios involving postwar instability in Iraq. The report's assertion "has been vehemently disputed," he said.

Then-CIA director George Tenet commissioned the report after the invasion of Iraq. The authors had access to highly classified intelligence data and produced three reports concerning Iraq intelligence.

Only the third has been released in declassified form. It is published in the current issue of Studies in Intelligence, a CIA quarterly written primarily for intelligence professionals. The report was finished in July 2004 just as Tenet was ending his tenure as CIA director.

OK. It sort of makes sense.You can't plan for the post war if you can't start the war.

The report determined that beyond the errors in assessing Iraqi weaponry, "intelligence produced prior to the war on a wide range of other issues accurately addressed such topics as how the war would develop and how Iraqi forces would or would not fight."

The intelligence "also provided perceptive analysis on Iraq's links to al-Qaeda and calculated the impact of the war on oil markets.

I suppose if all you really need is a war the rest is just details.

The Circus

2005-10-11T09:34:00.000-07:00

Hey everbody, the CIRCUS is in town! Look at the CHIMP...

FOXNews.com - Politics - Bush Spends Night in New Orleans to Promote Progress: "NEW ORLEANS — President Bush got a taste of some of New Orleans' finest attractions Monday in an effort to showcase progress in a hurricane-battered city.

The president dined at a French Quarter (search) restaurant before spending the night in a famed luxury hotel.

Hmmm... Checkin up on the progress. That's good.

The president's effort to show New Orleans is making progress came even as much of the city remains in ruins.

The historic French Quarter was mostly spared by the storm and is showing increasing signs of normalcy with lights back on and establishments re-opened.

Still, many of New Orleans' stores andnhabitable, even if mostly dry.

That sound's about right for the situation. But it seems unusually compassionate and longsighted for Bush . (Not to mention somewhat pointless.)

The president, accompanied by wife Laura, saw little of that, instead choosing to shine a spotlight on the improvements.

There we go. Folks a couple of five star restaurants and a world class hotel do not a rebuilding make.

The Worst School Disaster In US History...

2005-10-04T11:12:00.000-07:00

Was not at Columbine. In fact it wasn't even in the last half century. In was in the 1920's in Bath, Michigan. You can get some details Here and Here.

It seems Mr. Kehoe was unhappy about the tax increase for the new school and got himself elected to the school board. When the school needed some electrical work he offered to do it to save some money. In addition to the needed wiring however he also wired the school with explosives. 45 people died, mostly students. There would have been more but not all of the explosives detonated.

So next time you hear someone complain about school violence and long for the good old days, hope they don't mean the 1920's.

Here we go

2005-08-17T06:32:00.000-07:00

This is the form of government we have.....

KAKISTOCRACY - Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled
citizens. Etymology: Greek kakistos, worst, superlative of kakos, bad. -
American Heritage Dictionary
(from the Progressive Review's Undernews)

Dangerous Drugs

2005-07-14T06:41:00.000-07:00

The List
ANNUAL DEATHS FROM VARIOUS DRUGS IN BRITAIN

Tobacco: 100,000
Alcohol: 6,000
Heroin: 652
Methadone: 97
Ecstasy: 25
Crack: 20
Amphetamines: 12
Cocaine: 11
Marijuana: 0

[Government report]

Hmmm that is an interesting list. Some really dangereous drugs out there, apparently marijuana isn't one of them.

Monty Python's Terry Jones Weighs In

2005-05-18T11:29:00.000-07:00

Man it HAS been a while since I posted. Lots going on, Moving and the like. I will be posting More regularly.

I love Monty Python their ability over the years to point out the absurd in our institutions has been inspiring as well as informative and amusing.

Terry Jones of of the Pythons hits one out of the park this morning in a Guardian Editorial commenting on the fact that Iraqi children were better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now:

So he [George Bush] hit on the idea of bombing them instead. And not just bombing, but capturing and torturing their fathers, humiliating their mothers, shooting at them from road blocks - but none of it seems to do any good. Iraqi children simply refuse to be better nourished, healthier and less inclined to die. It is truly baffling.
And this is why we at the department are appealing to you - the general public - for ideas. If you can think of any other military techniques that we have so far failed to apply to the children of Iraq, please let us know as a matter of urgency. We assure you that, under our present leadership, there is no limit to the amount of money we are prepared to invest in a military solution to the problems of Iraqi children.

Terry also gives torture a thorough going over in this article on the In These Times site. Always good to hear from the Monty Python guys.

More On The Social Security Privitization Scam

2004-12-30T09:49:00.000-08:00

From The Progressive Review

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR - The idea is broadly accepted. That's why the administration's plan to partially privatize the system sounds appealing to many. But that better return won't always happen. Just ask Stanley Logue of San Diego.

For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and check his own records. Would he have done better investing his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration?

He recorded all the payroll taxes he paid into the system (including the matching amount from his employer), tracked down the return the Social Security Trust Fund earned for each of the 45 years, and then compared the result with what he would have gotten had he been able to invest the same amount of payroll tax money over the same period in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends).

To his surprise, the Social Security investment won out: $261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873.

It's an astonishing finding. The DJIA represents blue-chip stocks. Social Security invests in US Treasury bonds. Over long periods of time, stocks have consistently outperformed bonds. So, you would think that Logue's theoretical stock investments from 1950 to 1994 would have surely outpaced the return on government bonds.

Let's REALLY Fix Social Security

2004-12-21T13:43:00.000-08:00

The Conservative mantra about social security has been "privatize" for years but a commentary from the New York Times and a study by the Century Foundation show that it hasn't been working in other countries. Maybe we should take a long second look at this idea! Below is an excerpt from the NYT article.

As the Bush administration tries to persuade America toconvert Social Security into a giant 401(k), we can learn alot from other countries that have already gone down thatroad. Information about other countries' experience withprivatization isn't hard to find. For example, the CenturyFoundation, at www.tcf.org, provides a wide range of links.Yet, aside from giving the Cato Institute and otherorganizations promoting Social Security privatization thespace to present upbeat tales from Chile, the U.S. newsmedia have provided their readers and viewers with littleinformation about international experience. In particular,the public hasn't been let in on two open secrets:
Privatization dissipates a large fraction of workers'contributions on fees to investment companies.
It leaves many retirees in poverty.
Decades of conservative marketing have convinced Americans thatgovernment programs always create bloated bureaucracies,while the private sector is always lean and efficient. But when it comes to retirement security, the opposite is true. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. InChile's system, management fees are around 20 times ashigh. And that's a typical number for privatized systems.
And...
Privatizers who laud the Chilean system never mention thatit has yet to deliver on its promise to reduce governmentspending. More than 20 years after the system was created,the government is still pouring in money. Why? Because, asa Federal Reserve study puts it, the Chilean government must "provide subsidies for workers failing to accumulate enough capital to provide a minimum pension." In other words, privatization would have condemned many retirees todire poverty, and the government stepped back in to save them.
The same thing is happening in Britain. Its Pensions Commission warns that those who think Mrs. Thatcher's privatization solved the pension problem are living in a"fool's paradise." A lot of additional government spending will be required to avoid the return of widespread poverty among the elderly - a problem that Britain, like the U.S.,thought it had solved.
Britain's experience is directly relevant to the Bush administration's plans. If current hints are an indication,the final plan will probably claim to save money in the future by reducing guaranteed Social Security benefits.These savings will be an illusion: 20 years from now, anAmerican version of Britain's commission will warn that big additional government spending is needed to avert a looming surge in poverty among retirees.

Life Without The Left

2004-10-13T21:43:00.000-07:00

Here are a just a few of the things America would be without were it
not
for liberals in the White House:

- Regulation of banks and stock brokerage firms cheating their

customers

- Protection of your bank account

- Social Security

- A minimum wage

- Legal alcohol

- Regulation of the stock exchanges

- Right of labor to bargain with employers

- Soil Consevation Service and other early environmental programs

- National parks and monuments such as Death Valley, Blue Ridge,
Everglades, Boulder Dam, Bull Run, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, Mount
Rushmore, Jackson Hole, Grand Teton, Cape Cod, Fire Island, and San
Juan
Islands just to name a few.

- Tennessee Valley Authority

- Rural electrification

- College educations for innumerable veterans

- Housing loans for innumerable veterans

- FHA housing loans

- The bulk of hospital beds in the country

- Unemployment insurance

- Small Business Administration

- National Endowment for the Arts

- Medicare

- Peace Corps

More About Capitalism

2004-10-12T20:08:00.000-07:00

In a preface to an article from the Christian Science Monitor, the editor of the Progressive Review Had this to say:

Unmentioned in this story is the real reason countries are worried about a population implosion: despite it being desirable and even necessary for the ecological future of the earth, it will mean replacing capitalism with some other economic system. You can't have capitalism without expanding markets and you can't have expanding markets without population growth.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that capitalism as we know it cannot continue forever. As less and less Manual labor is involved in manufaturing and population growth slows (and it will sooner or later) there has to be a way for the average person to make a living. Failing that class warfare will be the result. Plain and Simple.

Executive Compensation

2004-09-29T21:26:00.000-07:00

The salary of the chief executive of a large corporation is not a market
award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal
gesture by the individual to himself.

- John Kenneth Galbraith

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Debates: How can we get the right asnwers...

2004-09-27T22:46:00.000-07:00

If we can't even ask the right questions? In the upcoming presidential debates the news organizations asking the questions had to agree to ask only questions the candidates agreed to answer in advance. If not the candidates have a right to remove that person from the debate panel and replace them. Even in the 'Town Hall' debate the 'citizens' asking the questions must have them pre-approved. If they deviate from their pre-approved question the moderator will cut them off. I don't know about you but there is a reason I don't go to Political rallies or watch the President's speeches on TV (regardless of who is President), that reason is that it is all pre scripted propaganda. The real person shows through when he is asked a question for which he or she wasn't prepared. Are these candidates so unimaginative or afraid to slip up (or both) that they cannot speak extempoaneously. Must they have all the answers before the questions are asked ( last time I knew someone that prepared they were suspended from high school for cheating ). Let them do what I did in school, study and be ready for any question that may come. If I want something scripted I'll watch a movie or go to the theatre.

Political Correctness vs Family Values

2004-09-26T10:04:00.000-07:00

I am getting weary every time someone asks that another person be polite or considerate or when someone gets offended the 'Politically Correct' card gets played and those of us on the left get blamed. While I agree some folks could be a little less sensitive or less easily offended, I find it amazing that no one jumps on the conservative version of political correctness. Namely, 'Family Values'. The conservative folks have been cloaking their religious, moral and political agenda under the cape of 'Family Values'. After all who would want to be 'Anti-Family'? Not me. On the other hand the ideology usually advanced by these folks rarely reflect the values of my family, or for that matter most of the families I know. I agree families are important and a good set of positive values are also important. If you want to really help families however try equal pay for men and women for equal work. Better still, how about a wage that would allow one of the parents to stay home and allow both of the parents to work a 40 hour work week and not need overtime and/or a second job just to make ends meet. While I am at it how about justice and fairness for ALL Americans not just those who can afford it. (After that we can begin working for justice and peace in the rest of the world). These are things that would be valuable to all families.

Ashcroft - 0 for 5000

2004-09-24T20:55:00.000-07:00

Remember back right after 9/11 when Attorney General Ashcroft was touting all the suspected terrorists they were arresting in the Justice Department sweeps? Do you remember how many convictions there were out of all of those arressts ( 5000 of them ). Here's a hint more than zero less than two. That's right 5000 suspected terrorists arrested 1 conviction. But wait! There's more! on Sept. 2nd of this year the courts overturned that conviction. So now there are no convictions. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. None. Our Attorney General has gone 0 for 5000 at catching terrorists. Whee! Ain't the war on terror fun. Don't you feel so secure when we can arrest 5000 people and not one of them is a terrorist? Does Ashcroft and or the Justice Department have any idea what they are or should be doing? If you need me I'll be hiding under my bed.

Atheist Fundamentalists

2004-09-23T22:05:00.000-07:00

I recently read a book in which the main character was an atheist. Generally speaking, I have no quarrels with atheists. I don't share their beliefs but so what. Generally speaking. This character however proselytizes atheism. The character seeks to convince his antagonist to convert. Make no mistake atheism is a religion too (if you consider religion to be a belief system) . I have known an atheist or two like this character (although most atheists I have known don't get into the "why" and "how" of their beliefs unless asked) and I enjoy a free and open discussion however these folks have anything but a free and open discussion. Fundamentalists of any ilk by definition feel that they have all the answers and it is their duty to get everyone else to adopt their beliefs. Fundamentalist atheists are no more welcome by me than Fundamentalist Christians or Muslims. Atheists get this absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence ( the inability to prove God exists is not proof of God's nonexistence). Also atheism is a belief system as are other religions. Knock yourself out if that is what gets you through the night but understand the rest of need not buy in just to validate your faith.

Bush Lied & People Died

2004-09-22T21:37:00.000-07:00

Once and for all I would like to settle and argument or two with some of my more conservative friends. Bush lied about reasons for invading Iraq. First there were the WMD's we didn't find any and some have defended this by saying well they moved them while we looked for them or something of that general nature. We didn't need to look for them. According to Colin Powell speaking to the UN before the invasion we KNEW Iraq had WMD's and we knew EXACTLY where they were. What should have been said is we are pretty sure they have some and we kinda know where they are. Secondly the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq (Hussein specifically) well, ummm... there isn't one. Bush is simply "Kicking the Dog" (this refers to a Monty Python bit in which the wealthy matron of a family passes gas and rather than risk offending her and being written out of the will each time she flatulates the family members kick the dog). The real funding and cultivating of Al Qaeda and terrorists comes from Saudi Arabia but we don't want to piss them off. For this ours sons, daughters and neighbors are dying.

Church And State

2004-09-16T21:28:00.000-07:00

I hear on a fairly regular basis people calling for a lifting of the ban on 'Prayer In School'. NEWS FLASH - Prayer has always been allowed in school. The school leading the students in prayer however violates the constitution. The 'Wall of Seperation' between church and state should be maintained for two reasons:

The Constitution says so.
Mixing Religion into the government is a phenomenally BAD idea. (I will present evidence of this momentarily).

I know at least a few of you are thinking that the 'Wall of Seperation' is a recent invention (because a year or two ago alot of people went on news shows and said it was.) and that our founding fathers didn't refer to the 'Wall' (same reason as above) but the person who coined the term 'Wall of separation between church and state' was in fact Thomas Jefferson. James Madison another of our founding fathers and pricipal author of the Constitution was a vocal church and state separatist. It wasn't uncommon when our country was young for a person to be singled out and arrested, or pilloried for being of a religious denomination different from that in the majority of the area they were in. Our founding fathers though they may have been religious did not want the church and the goverment to be involved with one another.

As for reason number two let me just list some of the notable countries in the world where church and state are strongly intertwined if not one and the same. Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Israel. Before anyone says none of those is Christian let me add Ireland and Northern Ireland. As you can see not exactly the most peaceful places in the world. If that is what mingling chuch and state bring I'll pass thanks.

Why Capitalism Isn't Working Right

2004-09-14T21:38:00.000-07:00

I had someone tell me once that Communism doesn't work because there is no incentive for workers to do their best. Everybody has the same, so why work harder. As politely as I could I said BULLSPIT!. Communism doesn't work properly for the same reason Capitalism doesn't. They were both dreamed up and theorized in IDEAL conditions. Under those ideal conditions both work perfectly. In the real worl however both fail. How many times have you heard the expression " A rising tide raises all ships"? I have heard it a lot. Mostly to justify corporate welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy. That expression shows how Capitalism is supposed to work. An owner starts a company and as it prospers so does the owner AND the employees who worked and contributed to the company's success. What we tend to see these days is companies whose revenues, profits, and executives salaries outpace inflation but whose workers wages don't. Running businesses this way can't go on forever. I don't have all the answers but the sooner we get one for this economic problem the better off we all will be.

Something I Don't Understand

2004-09-13T20:41:00.000-07:00

Florida is a "Right to Work" state. That means that unions generally aren't very strong here and it is easy for management to keep them out. Florida is also an "At Will" employment state meaning an employer can fire an employee at any time for any reason or for no reason at all. What I have a problem understanding is why more workers don't band together and unionize. I know many working class folks who are anti-union. I suspect there are one of a few reasons for this.
One would be that they buy into the anti-union garbage that they have had preached at them over the years (unions are pricing themselves out of the market, unions are communistic, etc.). Those are all lies. Another is that they have never belonged to a union and therefor do not understand what a union really is. The last is that they blame the union for some unfortunate event in their past.
For anyone out there who doesn't truly know what a union is let me offer a few examples of what a union can do. One of the things everyone seems to latch on to is the higher wages. This is generally true. I worked for a telecom company from 1991-1994 and was a member of the IBEW. When the office I worked in closed I made 9.86 per hour as a directory assistance operator. (in 1994 in Florida that was outstanding pay for that job.) By contrast in 2002 I worked for an outsourcing company taking customer service and billing calls for a natural gas company (much more complicated work) and made 9.00 per hour. So the wage benifit was definitely there. But there is more than just cash. Job security was another. Yes I eventually lost my job when they closed the office, but before that the union contract averted a major layoff. Also it was good to know that my boss could not just walk in and fire me on any given day because he had an argument with his wife that morning. Another benefit was fairness. Rules in the union contract enforced the equalization of overtime and a grievance procedure if an employee was wronged. All these things and more were worth well more than the small dues I paid to be a union member. The union helped to give me some control over the direction of my work. The union contract is a negotiated agreement between the workers and management. What could be more fair than that? I really wonder why more people don't wake up and realise that they would be much better off with a union. How else do you ever to get your fair share of the money you bring into your company and be sure you get a fair shake from the management?

Message To Kerry Forget About Vietnam

2004-09-12T22:06:00.000-07:00

Bill Clinton, appearing on The Daily Show, hit the nail on the head. The reason, he said, that the Republicans are attacking Kerry's Vietnam War record was because neither Bush, nor Cheney served in Vietnam and Kerry did. This makes Bush/Cheney not look so good so they attack it to make Kerry look bad and avoid talking about the real issues confronting the nation. If Kerry or any of his people only ever read one of my blog posts I hope it is this one. Forget about Vietnam. You have addressed it and the record speaks for itself. Move on to real issues. That is the last thing Bush wants you to do. Bush has failed so miserably that he dare not really speak about his policies. Talk about how you would handle a terrorist attack and how you would deal with Iraq. Since you can't do worse than Bush any other plan would be an improvement. Please, for the sake of the country don't get bogged down in the attack abyss. Address the attacks, respond appropriately then get immediately back to the issues. Bush can't touch you on the issues. That makes it a safe place to run a campaign from.

Florida 2000 Vote: Not The Greens' Fault

2004-09-11T19:30:00.000-07:00

As a registered Green I caught a lot of flack from my Democrat friends over the 2000 election in Florida. As a Floridian I caught a lot flack from the rest of the country over the 2000 election in Florida. I would like to set the record straight. Gore won in Florida in 2000. After the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush as President the Media Consortium completed the recount of the votes. What was found was that had the recount been finished Gore would have won. The Consortium counted ALL the votes. As certified by Katherine Harris, Bush won Florida by 537 Votes. The recount, which included votes not previously counted such as hanging chads and votes found after certification showed a net gain for Gore of 644 votes which means Gore won by 107 votes. Ironically if just the hanging and dimpled chads had been recounted ( as Gore to some degree was pushing for) it would have only widened Bush's margin of victory but a straight up recount (as Bush advocated) would have resulted in a Gore victory. Clearly there should have been a recount as the margin of victory was smalller than the margin of error. What the Supreme Court should have done was rule as to what the recount should have been not just appoint a president. Don't blame the people of Florida for the outcome. Most of us voted for Gore. The Supreme Court threw out our votes.

Voting In Florida: BACKUP!

2004-09-10T20:29:00.000-07:00

I have worked for an accounting firm, a catalog order company, and a Psycologists office. One thing they all had in common, Computers. Another thing they all had in common, a backup system. In each of those cases if our cumputers went down we still had a way to retrieve records and/or continue to do business without the computers. My ex-wife works in a hospital as a nurse and though much of the charting is computerized, there is still a paper backup system. Why then has the state of Florida steadfastly refused to initiate a paper receipt backup for the new touchscreen voting system in the event of a need for a recount? It is insane to think that the order of some trinket is important enough to warrant a paper backup system but our votes do not. It would also seem that after the debacle in the 2000 election (more on this in a future post) in this state over recounts that the governor and the government would go FAR out of the way to remove doubt, reduce error and increase veracity and accuracy. The state should be doing all they can to instill trust and confidence in the new system. Instead, the governor's steadfast refusal to add a paper trail gives many (myself of course included) a feeling of uneasiness about the new system. Jeb, Give us our paper trail. Make this system as safe and as verifiable as possible. PLEASE!