Being Humans

I dig running

2007-06-15T23:01:00.000-07:00

Cheney's and Rumsfeld's Job Approval

2006-11-01T23:13:00.000-08:00

According to the President "Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them."

Leadership

2006-11-01T22:35:00.000-08:00

According to the House majority leader, John Boehner, the problems in Iraq are not Rumsfeld's fault but the fault of the generals.

GOP HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER JOHN BOEHNER: Let's not blame what's happening in Iraq on Rumsfeld.

WOLF BLITZER: But he's in charge of the military.

BOEHNER: But the fact is, the generals on the ground are in
charge, and he works closely with them and the president.

Is the Republican leadership's new to blame the military? I guess you don't go to war with the military you want, but only with the military you have.

Of course, the flaw in this argument is that if the Generals are failing, it is precisely Rumsfeld who has the power to replace them, so we find ourselves back in the same Situation. If Rumsfeld refuses to remove those leaders who are failing, then he is not doing his job, and he must be removed by the President. If the President does not, he is failing in his job exactly as Rumsfeld is failing in his own.

Why McCain Doesn't Understand Torture - Because he was Tortured.

2006-09-19T16:54:00.000-07:00

On The O'Reilly Factor, former NY Senator Al D'Amato (R) argued that Senator John McCain's insistence that the United States observe the prohibitions against torture in the Geneva Convention results from the fact that McCain was “so traumatized by the events that took place” during his captivity in the Vietnam War (including being tortured), and that McCain "doesn’t even really want to [be] or is in a position to consider the impact of what his restrictions would do.

"To top it off, D'Amato states that observing prohibitions against torture is "not going to make us look any morally better."

Has this country lost its mind?(For the video, see here).

When Perjury Doesn't Matter.

2006-09-04T15:57:00.000-07:00

FoxNews favorite, Bill Kristol argued the following:

"Bush should pardon Libby. He should do it now. It would be fantastic. The democrats would go crazy . . . He didn’t lie in any serious meaning of lying before a grand jury."

And yet, lying about one's sexual partners in an investigation into a real estate deal is 'lying in a serious meaning' of the term? Perplexing.

Winning Strategy?

2006-09-04T15:50:00.000-07:00

Senator Santorum (R-PA) argues, "how do we cure Iraq? Focus on Iran."

Could that strategy lead this country to victory in Iraq, world opinion, or Iran? And could that argument lead Sentorum to victory in November? I don't think its a stretch that the answer to both questions is no.

The Persistence of Racism

2006-08-30T17:36:00.000-07:00

George Allen (R-Va) has been spent much time recently explaining why he called his opponent's campaign worker "macaca" (a type of a monkey). Allen claims it was a mistake. That may very well be true, who knew what "macaca" meant before Allen made it famous. Then of course the question is, why use a term, several times, you don't know the meaning of?

Now it appears that remark may not have been the mistake his campaign claims it was. Allen now finds himself in need of explaining an association with an overtly racist conservative group, the Counsel of Conservative Citizens (CCC).

The 1996 photgraph includes Allen, three CCC members, and Charlton Heston (from left to right: then Gov. George Allen, Fred C. Jennings, Gordon Lee Baum, Tom Dover, and Charlton Heston) . The photograph was taken at Conservative Conference co-sponsored by the CCC.

The conference proudly displayed two large confederate flags, which appear to accurately reflect the group's ideology (the Confederacy of course presented arguably the greatest threat to the perpetuation of the United States - its celebration, in my opinion is antithetical to American patriotism).

Most disturbingly, this group's "Statement of Principles" includes the following ideals:

- "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."

- "We also oppose all such legislation as so-called 'hate crime.'"

- "We believe that the United States of America is a Christian country, that its people are a Christian people, and that its government and public leaders at all levels must reflect Christian beliefs and values."

- "We believe that the United States derives from and is an integral part of European civilization and the European people and that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character."

- "We therefore oppose the massive immigration of non-European and non-Western peoples into the United States that threatens to transform our nation into a non-European majority in our lifetime."

----

It is a good thing that groups like this exist, otherwise we'd never have known the truth about people like George Allen. Howard Dean has previously stated that "I served with George Allen when he was governor. I don‘t think he belongs in public service, to be honest with you." The mounting evidence tends to support Dean's position here.

Who Has a Right to Free Speech?

2006-08-29T17:31:00.000-07:00

May a student be punished by a school for speech he makes that is not on school time and not on school property? Conservatives say yes.

Certainly when a public school punishes a student for their speech, that is a government body imposing limitations on what speech can be freely made.

A high school student in Alaska held up a banner stating "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during an Olympic Torch relay in 2002. He was suspended from school for this action.

The student sued the school and the 9th Circuit court of appeals held that the school had improperly infringed upon his right to free speech.

Now, Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr) has taken up the case, on behalf of the school, for free. Apparently believing so strongly that a school district's interest in punishing undesirable actions outweighs the Constitutional rights of students.

The logical conclusion would also be that the district would have a right to take action against staff and faculty for their off duty actions as well, whether or not the Constitution protects those actions.

Does the Constitution only protect us from being imprisoned for our speech but allow the government to punish us by other means for exercising those rights? I would doubt that the founders had such intent.

Development of Democracy

2006-05-31T11:52:00.000-07:00

"On average, nearly 80 Iraqis were killed or wounded every day from mid-February through mid-May, up from the previous quarter's 60 per day. At least 92 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Al Anbar since the start of the year" the LA Times reports.

"Democracy is on the march in Iraq." George W. Bush.

Taking A Stand

2006-05-31T11:50:00.001-07:00

Brave Move by FoxNews's John Gibson!

Credibility

2006-05-31T11:50:00.000-07:00

FoxNews analyst, Jonathan Hoenig asserts, "Theres no scientific proof that global warming even exists. To be honest, its a bogus consensus dreamed up by Greens because they hate industry. They hate advancement. They hate technologyGreens will lead us back to the stone ages."

ThinkProgress.org properly points out that "A big part of the solution to global warming, of course, is technology more efficient cars, renewable energy, cleaner production methods."

To Hoenig, Global Warming is nothing more than a vast left wing conspiracy. Does this strengthen FoxNews's credibility in your minds?

The Argument Against Global Warming

2006-05-28T14:57:00.000-07:00

The right wing rebuttal to Gore's film on Global Warming: "An Inconvenient Truth"

1) Sterling Burnett a senior fellow at the Exxon-backed National Center for Policy Analysis, argued against the film with this comparison of Gore to a Nazi propagandist: "You dont go see Joseph Goebbels films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You dont go see Al Gores films to see the truth about global warming."

2) Now, Bill Gray from the Washington Post magazine states: "Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews."

How about a scientific rebuttal to the points made in Gore's movie, if those points are so far off base?

Remember Republican responses to comparisons of Bush and his policies to Nazi Germany? Republicans have declared that any comparisons made to Nazis are "hateful, vitriolic rhetoric," "despicable,"and "deplorable, desparate tactics."

The Most Important Issues Facing America?

2006-05-28T14:56:00.000-07:00

When asked what the most important issues this country faces right now Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist says flag burning and gay marriage.

Is this political pandering and manipulation by Frist and his fellow republicans attempting to dictate what the election year issues will be? It seems clear to me.

Incidentally, the only countries that now ban flag burning are Cuba, Iran, and China.
Would an anti-flag burning Constitutional Amendment ban only burning the American flag?

Should it be criminal if Americans are insulted but acceptible for Americans to impart precisely the same insult against others, even to foreigners who live in America - is that consitent with the principles of the founding fathers? Or, would it be illegal to burn any country's flag? Is the activity so inherently dangerous that peace cannot be maintained without imposing criminal sanctions against all who perform it?

These two Constitutional Amendments are improper, in my view, because the Constitution is a document that 1) limits the power of government and 2) elaborates the rights of the people that cannot be infringed by the government. Both of these Proposed Amendments seek to place limitations of the rights of the people.

Gov't Interest in Your Internet Habits

2006-05-28T14:55:00.000-07:00

Imagine if the entire history of your internet viewing on your computer were retained and turned over to the government? Does that seem, to you, like a "Big Brother" scenario?

Not to the Bush administration who hopes to see it become business as usual.

"U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller on Friday urged telecommunications officials to record their customers' Internet activities."

"The Bush administration had generally opposed laws requiring data retention, saying it had 'serious reservations' about them. But after the European Parliament last December approved such a requirement for Internet, telephone and voice over Internet Protocol providers, top administration officials began talking about the practice more favorably."

When did the Bush Administration decided to begin adopting policies favored by Europe? Clearly the US is inherently behind the times with regard to restricting the freedoms of its own citizens.

Why Bush Environmental Policy is So Far Off

2006-05-23T23:48:00.000-07:00

I honestly believe that many, maybe most, Americans suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding as to many scientific issues, including global warming (along with Stem Cell Research and Evolution). Among the misinformed is the President.

Yesterday Bush stated, "New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment."

What he fails to understand is that no current technology purports an ability to improve the environment. How could it? The issue is not whether our activities are helping the environment or hurting it, the issue is how badly are our activities hurting the environment. Shouldn't we always seek to do as little harm as possible. Besides, if Bush honestly believes that industry can create technologies that will improve the environment, why isn't he demanding (even if only informally) that such technologies be more aggressively pursued?

Bush continued: "in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment."

Again, he severely misses the crucial point. If mankind is causing harm to the environment, those harmful activities can and should be resticted to the greatest degree practicable.

Why is that such an unreasonable proposition?

More Bad Policy

2006-05-23T23:46:00.000-07:00

Great article on the unspoken Anti-Terrorism/Iraq policy - Containment.

This policy approach, it appears, has developed merely by default. Whatever the policy was before (if there was one) had not been working and now the Administration is searching for a way to minimize the damage and keep it away from the US, if even that is possible.

Remember when the Republicans were saying that they were the only ones who could win the war on terror? I still believe that it is a war that we can win, but containment is not a strategy for victory.

Check out the article. If you are interested in politics, it is worth reading.

2006-05-18T12:18:00.000-07:00

I just read two news stories about politics.

The first one discusses how the Republicans have termed a class loyal voters for the right as "values voters." After the last election, the Republican party excitedly proclaimed themselves the stewards or morality. Clearly, in light of all of the corruption scandals, lies and misrepresentations, their eagerness to use torture, their eagerness to go to war, and their disregard of the consumer in favor of multibillion dollar industries, this was not true.

The next story I read sealed the deal. It's all about self interest.

Bill Conrad (R) is running for the CA state Assembly. In the upcoming primary, he is running against fellow Republican Tom Berryhill. Berryhill had a heart transplant six years ago. Conrad has concluded that this is an important election issue and below is the mailing he has used to pursuade voters to support him over the obviously unqualified Berryhill.

Which candidate is the one who lacks the heart? This, from the party with the monopoly on morality. There is no integrity here.

What Gives the Press the Right to Investigate?

2006-05-18T12:17:00.000-07:00

It seems that the only constitutional Amendment the President is interested in is the Second. He certainly isn't much concerned by the Fourth Amendment, as we know from his domestic wiretapping and phone records collection activities.

Apparently he doesn't care much for the First either, at least not any protections for the Press.

"The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters' phone records in leak investigations.

"'It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration,' said a senior federal official."

The USA PATRIOT Act includes a new provision which allows federal agents to seek information with what are called National Security Letters (NSL). This is a type of subpoena that orders records be turned over to the investigative agency. This subpoena need not be signed by a judge. As you can imagine, the FBI has been making extensive use of this provision.

Let's be clear on this: the FBI admits to monitoring reporters' phone calls.

Further, "under the law, a phone company receiving a NSL for phone records must provide them and may not divulge to the customer that the records have been given to the government."

Respecting the Constitution will not lead to the destruction of this country by terrorism (or the press).

For our form of government to operate effectively it need not constantly operate at, and often beyong, the limits of the Constitution.

Great Moments in History

2006-05-09T10:58:00.000-07:00

Bush was asked what was the greatest moment in his presidency.

His reply: "I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound perch in my lake."

Does George W. Bush understand that he is the President?

George Washington

2006-05-09T10:50:00.000-07:00

According to George W. Bush, "The interesting thing about [George Washington] is that I read three -- three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?"

Is he retarded?

Bush's Agenda

2006-05-06T13:57:00.000-07:00

In an interview with President Bush, the questioner asked about the movie "Flight 93." President Bush responded that he had not yet seen it but said: "I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III," referring to the actions of the passengers of that flight.

World War III?

Buy Now: Jesus Soap on a Rope

2006-05-05T10:53:00.000-07:00

Not for use on your "Bad Places."

The is No Debate on Global Warming!

2006-05-04T13:09:00.000-07:00

"Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sought to determine what the general consensus among climatologists was as to whether human activity is responsible for climate change. To do so, they analyzed every article published including the key words "Climate Change," which consisted of 928 scientific articles published between 1993 and 2003 in peer reviewed journals.

Of the 928 papers "none of these papers argued that" human activity is not repsonsible.

The consensus view of the scientific community is clearly that, "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
There is no controversy.

Flip Flop?

2006-05-02T18:54:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush, 4.28.2006:

"I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English, and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."

During George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign:

"When visiting cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, or Philadelphia, in pivotal states, he would drop in at Hispanic festivals and parties, sometimes joining in singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” in Spanish, sometimes partying with a “Viva Bush” mariachi band flown in from Texas."

Clearly, singing the National Anthem in spanish indicates a pre-9/11 mentality, and Bush no longer supports it.

50 States or 10 Commandments? You decide.

2006-04-28T17:27:00.000-07:00

Show your patriotism by writing on the American Flag! Wave the emblem of our country as it really should be (with the 10 commandments proudly inserted).

On a side note, I believe there was a US Supreme Court case in the 1960s about a man who was arrested for taping a peace sign onto a US flag - good thing for Christians that the Supreme Court said he couldn't go to jail for that.

More Bible Accessories

2006-04-28T17:19:00.000-07:00

What better way to proselytize your religious beliefs than with your necktie?

You have been searching for a way to say:

"Thou shalt not kill," and

"Do not covet thy neighbor's wife,"

without actually having to say it.

Well, here's the solution to your problems.

Enjoy!

FoxNews on Fashion

2006-04-28T11:59:00.000-07:00

"This purse gives a whole new meaning to wearing your Sunday best," says FoxNews.

Always on top of the latest fashions (and in no way trying to influence its viewer's behavior), FoxNews reports on a new product by designer Femme Sud, "the Bible handbag."

"Each book-shaped Bible bag is nearly twice the size of a standard-issue Gideon . . . and comes with vamp-red lipstick and a coin purse that says 'Pennies from Heaven.'"

Here's one opinion on the new fashion: "Bible-shaped handbags are nothing more than a cheap way for Christian zealots to shove their religion down the throat of agnostics and atheists," said Catholic League chief William Donohue.

This "cheap way" to shove religion down the throat of atheists and agnostics retails for $495.

The Gov't Should Know Everything

2006-04-22T13:08:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week, I posted a story about the Kansas Attorney General, Phill Kline, who, as I understoof it, sought to have doctors file a report with the state gov't when they believed that a minor had "engaged in sexual activity." At the time, I noticed the remarkably broad interpretation that phrase, "engaged in sexual activity," could be subjected to, but I did not look into it any further.

My post was incomplete.

Today, the New York Times ran a story on Mr. Kline's interpretation of that broadly worded phrase.

"This week, a federal trial judge in Wichita killed Mr. Kline's daft idea to require doctors, school counselors, and psychotherapists, among others, to report all sexual activity by people under 16, from kissing to sexual intercourse."

The reporting requirement is intended to alert authorities to incidents of abuse. To Kline, any activity, "from kissing to sexual intercourse," is automatically abuse - and could presumably be prosecuted as such.

The federal judge, Judge Marten, wisely observed that "Mr. Kline's blunderbuss reporting requirement would jeopardize the physical and mental health of adolescents by deterring them from seeking testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, birth control and counseling. It would also hurt efforts to combat real child abuse by overwhelming social service officials."

A report must be filed with the gov't every time a psychologist, school counselor, or doctor has any information that could be construed to indicate that a minor may have had sex or even just kissed someone?

Kline is expected to appeal this ruling and his position is gaining political might as anti-abortion groups are climbing on board, "eager to expand the use of child-abuse reporting laws."

This emphasizes the critical need that the judiciary must stay independent and that the people must be allowed privacy in their medical decisions and treatment.

Think to yourself, if this policy was in practice, would you have been reported to the gov't?

More on Entertainment

2006-04-20T23:39:00.000-07:00

David Lee Roth's run as morning radio host is about done.

"Reviews were poor and Roth fought with management over the show's format."

I was annoyed by his radio show and I never even heard it. I didn't know that was possible.

Harry Potter Leads to Suicide

2006-04-20T23:31:00.000-07:00

It is clear to any reasonable person that Harry Potter is not appropriate reading material for impressionable minds like those of Americans.

A group in Gwinnett county Georgia is trying to get these books banned from schools.

"I'm a true example of how Harry Potter books can open your life to witchcraft," said Jordan Susch.

Susch says she read the first Harry Potter novel when she was in the fourth grade. Two years later, she says, she and her friends were practicing witchcraft.

We wanted to know if spells, potions and curses worked. By the seventh grade, I was so depressed, I set a date to kill myself, Susch said.

Susch has joined Laura Mallorys fight to get the novels removed from the Gwinnett County Schools shelves.I want to protect my kids, children and others from evil, Mallory said. Not fill their minds with it.

***

"The hearing officer will make a recommendation within five days to the school board. The board has another ten days to determine whether the book will remain in the school systems libraries or not."

What the Gov't Thinks it Should Know

2006-04-19T11:14:00.001-07:00

Kansas law requires that doctors report cases of suspected sexual abuse.

Attorney General of Kansas, Phill Kline, issued an opinion stating that the law requires "all health care providers . . . alert the government when they learn that a minor had engaged in sexual activity or wants contraception."

Imagine the consequences! Would any young woman go to a doctor if she feared that the visit would lead to an official report about her sexual activity being reported to the government? At best, one expects patients would withhold potentially significant information from their doctors.

Fortunately, a Federal Judge struck down the Attorney General's interpretation. THAT is why we need an independent judiciary.

What the Gov't Wants to Know About You

2006-04-19T11:14:00.000-07:00

Progress Through Lawful Discrimination

2006-04-19T10:48:00.000-07:00

A new bill proposes an amendment to the Higher Education Act. Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) is seeking an exception in anti-dicscrimination provisions that would allow private Christian colleges to legally exclude students based on sexual orientation.

Should schools have the right to ask you about your sexual orientation? Should they have the right to reject students who refuse to answer? May they expel a student if they begin to think that the student is gay? Does a private group's right to discriminate supercede a private individual's right to an education?

Why should Christian schools, such as Pepperdine, Notre Dame, Samford, and Brigham Young, who lobbied for this legislation have such an exception while others are prohibited from discriminating? If it is a moral issue, shouldn't anyone be able to reject any applicant if they believe for any reason that the student's lifestyle is immoral or is the law simply more willing to agree that homosexuality is immoral?

Would the Christian groups who seek to discriminate accept the alternative of schools only for gay students? Somehow, I think they'd object to that proposal. Many Christian groups did in fact protest when Harvey Milk High School opened as a school for gay students, with protestors yelling "die fags."

Isn't this just leading to a re-segregation of society? Is that going to improve society?

How "Swiftboat" Became of Verb

2006-04-17T17:05:00.000-07:00

When Bush said he "listens to the Generals", clearly we missed where he qualified that statement with "if they agree with me."

As is done with everyone who criticizes the Administration, when the several Generals expressed their opinions the Rumsfeld is a failure, the right-wing attack dogs were unleashed.

The American Thinker:

Like so many CanCan dancers strutting their shapely legs before a lustful audience, the Clinton generals seem to be auditioning for the next Democrat administration But seeing retired general officers pick up the pompoms and cheerleading for the Democrats is really over the top: it shows nothing but contempt for military honor and tradition.

RedState:

A number of retired Generals have recently criticized SecDef Rumsfeld and demanded his departure. Big Lizards has a very interesting take on these ex-military types, including their Clintonoid backgrounds, plodding lack of originality in military matters, inefficiency, and outright dishonesty when comparing their statements before the Iraq War began and more recent statements on the situation in the Middle East.

Where is the Patriotism? Where is the concern for the state of this country?

War is Always the Answer

2006-04-17T16:29:00.000-07:00

Uniting the topics of my two previous posts is some interesting material from the always reliable FoxNews.

Steve Forbes, apparently ignoring every lesson of recent history, argues that "the bottom line with Iran is, when we have the confrontation, which we will have, we can really deal with that crisis. Then the price of oil will come down. The longer we let it fester, the higher the price of oil will stay."

Can the US spare the military manpower? The military resources? The financial resources (can we afford all the tax cuts that war will bring)? Any remaining belief throughout the world that we are not a country that is willing to kill populations to promote our financial interests?

Gas Prices

2006-04-17T16:28:00.000-07:00

The other day I paid about $3.25 a gallon for gas. This is where that money is going.

Thinkprogress.org posted a story about about Exxon CEO Lee Raymond's compensation and retirement packages.

Last year, Mr. Raymond was paid $190,915 A DAY, if you include weekends!
His retirement plan is also particularly generous:

"Nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such
as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security,
a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes."

Shareholders are taking steps to rein in some of this spending.

Invading Iran?

2006-04-15T12:07:00.000-07:00

Thinkprogress.org had an interesting post on potential plans for invading, or at least attacking Iran.

The post included the following point:

"Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a military analyst for Fox News and the Weekly Standard, on war in Iran: “I can lay out a campaign today that will take Iran down very quickly.” McInerney on war in Iraq in 2002: “[I]t will be a war that is shorter than” the 1991 Gulf War, which lasted 42 days."

Additionally, consider viewing the links in the above paragraph - which will take you to a page with video of the O'Reilly interview discussed.

Listening to the Generals

2006-04-15T11:24:00.000-07:00

Remember hearing words like these?

President Bush: "I'm saying I'm going to listen to the generals who say, Mr. President, we've got -- we need more, we need less, we've got exactly the right number."

Recently, Generals Newbold, Eaton, Zinni, and Batiste have gained prominent attention in called for Rumsfeld’s resignation.

That's four.

The list continues to grow. Ret. Army Gen. John Riggs, told the Washington Post recently: that he believes that his peer group is “a pretty closemouthed bunch” but that, even so, his sense is “everyone pretty much thinks Rumsfeld and the bunch around him should be cleared out.”

Now, another is speaking out. Retired Marine Lt. Gen Paul K. Van Riper said in an interview yesterday, “I admire those who have stepped forward, and I agree with the arguments they are making.” Further acknowledging, “I count myself in the same camp.”

That's six. Any more?

“I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. … Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there,” said retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division.

Seven!

The All-Knowing Pharmacist

2006-04-14T11:48:00.000-07:00

How much does your pharmacist know about your medical problems? How about your sense of morality? How much should they know, and how much authority should they have to make medical and moral decisions for you?

Some pharmacists are taking it upon themselves to make decisions implicating both areas of your life. Recently pharmacists have elicited controversy by refusing to fill prescriptions for drugs like Plan B or birth control pills for unmarried women. Now, some pharmacists have even refused to provide customers with vitamins or antibiotics prescribed by doctors who work at women's clinics were abortions are performed.

One customer was asked to explain why she visited the clinic before the pharmacist told her that she didn't need the medication her doctor prescribed and refused to provide it.
One group is arguing on behalf of these pharmacists asserting that "The right of conscience is a fundamental right recognized in the Washington Constitution. No citizen can be forced to yield that right when he or she enters the profession of his choice." This, however, is a fundamental misstatement of the law. A law of general applicability, not intended to regulate one's religious practices, need not allow exception because one asserts that their religious beliefs allow them to behave otherwise.

Further, the article notes that "If a pharmacist denies contraception to women, his or her actions, per state law, are discriminatory and unlawful."

In Washington, a state board of Pharmacy (which regulates the practice of pharmacists) is considering how to deal with the issue. Many fear that if the board decides to allow pharmacists religious based exceptions to performance of their duties "self-righteous pharmacists could prevent a woman from getting birth control pills if she couldn't supply a marriage license; prevent a recovering alcoholic from getting Antabuse; or stop someone from getting an AIDS cocktail."

Clearly, the Board of Pharmacy must decide whose rights are in greater need of protection. Does a patient's right to receive a medication that their doctor has determined is necessary trump a pharmacist's (a person who elected to be in that position) right to exercise their moral perspective regarding your actions?

The Political Interests of Hunters

2006-04-14T11:36:00.000-07:00

As Bush's support continues to dwindle, even once reliable allies are expressing their displeasure with the failures of the administration. An editorial from the Magazine "Field and Stream" noted:

"Rod and gun in hand, and backing the Second Amendment right to own firearms, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have won the hearts of Americas sportsmen. Yet the two men have failed to protect outdoor sports on the nations public lands. With deep ties to the oil and gas industry, Bush and Cheney have unleashed a national energy plan that has begun to destroy hunting and fishing on millions of federal acres throughout the West, setting back effective wildlife management for decades to come."

The article goes on to express its concern that:

"Most disturbingly, Congress is now debating a national energy bill that would codify the policy, making it the law of the land rather than an executive order. Subsequent administrationsbe they Republican or Democraticwould be unable to institute a more balanced management plan for our western lands without resorting to new congressional legislation."

Bill O'Reilly: Freedom Fighter

2006-04-12T12:22:00.000-07:00

O'Reilly and FoxNews, as always, are investing their time in the causes that are of the greatest concern and that are most pressing on the issues that really affect the lives of Americans. The war in Iraq? No. The devasting effects US fiscal policy might have on the country's future? No. Global Warming, pollution, and depletion of our natural resources? No, of course not, FowNews is only interested in the Truth - The Easter Bunny!

OREILLY: "Although some left-wingers in the media deny it, we have documented a number of cases where Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter have been attacked by secular interests. Lawsuits and corporate policies have proved this point over and over again."

What in the world will FoxNews cover during the summer? They can only hope that the Natalie Holloway case will not be solved by then.

Fossil Evidence

2006-04-12T11:56:00.000-07:00

It is becoming more and more difficult to argue against evolution based on an incomplete fossil record. Today, an international team of scientists reprots that it has discovered fossils of a primitive human ancestor in Ethiopia.

The discovery of these "4.1 million year old fossils in eastern Ethiopia [fills] a missing gap in human evolution" between some of the most primitive bipedal humans and their more primate-like ancestors. The fossils are dated by their location in the geologic strata as well and are subjected to radiological dating procedures.

The fossils provides confirmation of our current understanding of the timing of human evolutionary progression both in the presence of bipedal mobility and the retention of a more primate-like cranial structure.

"The remains of the hominid that had a small brain, big teeth and walked on two legs, fits into the one million-year gap between the earlier Ardipithecus and Australopithecus afarensis which includes the famous fossil skeleton known as Lucy."

The Discontent Among Us

2006-04-07T08:42:00.000-07:00

Approval ratings for the President and the GOP have hit new lows according to a new AP-Ipsos poll.

At this stage in their presidencies, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had approval ratings in the mid sixties. Bush's now stands at 36%.

The Republican Congress is gaining even less favor with an approval rating of just 30%.

This is patricularly significant during an electrion year where "there is more at stake than the careers of GOP lawmakers. A Democratic-led Congress could bury the last vestiges of Bush's legislative agenda and subject the administration to high-profile investigations of the Iraq war, the CIA leak case, warrantless eavesdropping and other matters."

- Bush's foreign policy - 40% approval

- Bush's Handling of Iraq - 35% approval

- "By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress."

- 69% of Americans believes the nation is headed in the wrong direction

- 6 in 10 Republicans disapprove of the Republican-led Congress

More Debate on Christianity . . . Will Christianity Miss This Opportunity to Benefit?

2006-04-06T22:55:00.000-07:00

The Book of Judas, a gospel that has been lost for nearly 2,000 years, was discovered in the 1970s and has been in hiding since it was unlawfully removed frm Egypt. Now it has resurfaced for expert analysis.

The document appears to date to roughly 300 ce (common era, formerly AD). It is a copy of an earlier manuscript that was referred to as early as 180 ce.

Of course, only four gospels were selected for inclusion into the Bible although many more existed. "Eventually, one point of view prevailed and the others were declared heresy," Bart Ehrman, chairman of religious studies at the University of North Carolina said, "including the Gnostics who believed that salvation depended on secret knowledge that Jesus imparted, particularly to Judas."

"The text ends with Judas turning Jesus over to the high priests and does not include any mention of the crucifixion or resurrection. " Just as the other four gospels included in the Bible, this one makes little acknowledgement and includes no details or specifics on the crucifixion.

This appears to be a document that legitimately dates back to the same time as the other gospels and, realistically, should initiate a complex and analytical debate about its authenticity and the effect it may have on the authenticity of the other gospels.

Will Christianity take advantage of the debate and advance the religion or will it pigeonhole itself into the doctrine it presently accepts without giving fair consideration of evidence that is at least as valid as any evidence supporting extant ideological perspectives?

I never quite understood why religion hesitated to occasionally say, "you know, we just aren't 100% sure what happened, only God knows." Yet, I've never heard this from the church. It seems they fear that if they cannot offer answers to all who ask, they fear the loss of credibility. To me, acknowledging uncertainty would add credence.

Filling the Gaps

2006-04-05T23:55:00.000-07:00

Scientists report the discovery of a 375 million year old fossil of a marine animal that displays the structural precursors of the yet to appear amphibians. This precursor to land animals has been considered to fill a significant gap in the fossil record.

Specifically, the appendages show development of digits, wrists, elbows, and weight bearing shoulders, features not present, or necessary, in fish. What few gaps remain in the fossil record are being filled as the fossil record becomes more complete clarifying our understanding of the evolutionary process.

More on Global Warming . . . Or Rather Less

2006-04-05T23:54:00.000-07:00

As exposed previously within NASA, scientists in other federal agencies have been prevented or discouraged from speaking out about global warming.

Now, the Washington Post is reporting that "Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether."

The prevention of the free flow of information is antithetical to science as well as Democracy and therefore is a threat to both.

Frist in Descent

2006-04-02T20:41:00.000-07:00

A Time article describes Bill Frist's apparently descending position as the Senate Majority Leader for the GOP.

When asked on Frist's performance as Majority leader one Senator said "I hear he was a pretty good surgeon."

"He'll disappear," said a Republican consultant. "He's not built for heavy weather. He's just not an instinctive politician. And when you're a light candidate, every maneuver seems naked and tactical. With Frist, it's been college Republican sort of stuff."

He has been criticized from within his own ranks for his moves as majority leader. Are these intraparty attacks against Frist (and those against McCain) opportunitistic politics in a political party where everyone is jostling for a position as the next Republican Presidential Candidate, are they the result of a party merely recognizing that it has poorly selected its leaders (DeLay, Bush, Rove, Lott, etc.), or is there true discontent within the party of those at its helm?

Who Needs Facts When We Have Hatred?

2006-04-01T22:07:00.000-08:00

Michael Savage is a right wing AM radio talk who appears to have completely lost his mind.

Recently, Savage went on a diatribe criticizing Mexicans for waiving the Mexican flag in this country and urging Americans to "go out in the street and show you're a man, burn 10 Mexican flags."

Is this consistent with the policy of spreading Freedom throughout the world?

He went on to say "No Mr. Bush, they do not come over here to work. They come over here to work the system, sell drugs, rape, and kill on contract. Don't lie to us." Apart from the point that now even righties believe Bush is lying to the public, I think Mr. Savage may not be basing his argument on many actual facts.

See here, for a transcript and an audio clip of Savage's tirade.

More on Morons

2006-04-01T22:05:00.000-08:00

Jill Carroll, American journalist and recently released hostage of Iraqi insurgents, is now the subject of some mind boggling criticism.

While in the custody of the insurgents, they videotaped and distributed statements made by her that "The mujahedeen are the ones that will win in the end," adding that the insurgents "are good people fighting an honorable fight while the Americans are here as an occupying force treating the people in a very bad way."

After her release, while at Sunni party headquarters, still in Iraq, she stated that the insurgents treated her well and did not threaten her. After flying to Germany she stated that she still feared for her safety at that time and was not speaking freely.

Additionally, some have claimed that Carroll refused to travel with US military personell and that she refused to speak with US officials. Neither is true. Capt. Patrick Kerr of the US Marines spoke of her stating, "Her professionalism and objectivity were unparalleled within the media community."

Radio Personality Bernard McGuirk said, "She strikes me as the kind of woman who would wear one of those suicide vests. You know, walk into the try and sneak into the Green Zone."

A conservative writer for the LA Times, Jonah Goldberg complained that Carroll was "starting to bug [him]." He said, "it would be nice to hear her say something remotely critical of her captors."

Debbie Schlussell, in a particularly hostile tirade stated that Carroll, "HATES AMERICA and our Mid-East policy. And, oh yeah, she HATES ISRAEL, too." Schlussell went on to describe Carroll as a "spoiled brat America-hater from Ann Arbor" and stated that "Jill Carroll is the tool and partner of extremists and terrorists."

Now the victims of terrorists are also UnAmerican? Imagine how excited these three will get when they realize that there are nearly 3,000 Americans ripe for criticism, who died in NY and Washington a few years ago at the hands of terrorists, and they are dead and can't defend themselves.

The Future of America

2006-03-31T13:16:00.000-08:00

A hospital in St. Louis, Missouri is going to such lengths to accomodate their growing clientele as "replacing beds and wheelchairs with bigger models, widening doorways, buying larger CT scan machines, even replacing slippers and gowns."

The same hospital reported that roughly 1/3 of the 900 patients they saw that year weighed more than 350 pounds.

Nursing unions are now demanding that hospitals get portable hoists because the nurses cannot physically move their patients anymore without risking or suffering from physical injuries themselves.

Some doors at the St. Louis hospital have been widened from 36 inches to 52 (that is 4 feet, 4 inches). A Cooper Mini is only 14.5 inches wider than these new doors (66.5 inches).

"A special chair for obese patients is large enough to accommodate physical therapists Dawn Caplan, right and Natasha Miriani." (see image above)

In some cases, syringe needles with a length of 4.5 inches could not reach through the fat in order to get the injectable solution where it needed to be.

Even specially made body bags had to be ordered.

The hospital says that it is seeking ways to ensure that all of its patients are treated with dignity.

Are the hospital's practices and facilities stripping these people of their dignity or is there something else doing it? How far are we willing to go to accomodate such a condition that can hardly be said to be any less damaging than alcoholism, smoking, or doing illicit drugs?

What Evolution Cannot Explain

2006-03-29T11:24:00.000-08:00

I was reading through some blogs and news one day and came across a post on the blog The Panda's Thumb. The post was commenting on an article, from a South Carolina newspaper, describing the defects in evolution.

The following is an excerpt of the anti-evolutionist's argument:

The theory of evolution does not and cannot explain so much about the universe that we know. For instance, when and how did water evolve? How does it happen that gravity can hold us to the Earth, and at the same time allow us to step up without any trouble? How did it happen that the Earth is spinning at the exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement?

After I stopped laughing, I did have to ask myself, did water really evolve from apes? And how is it that the Earth does spin at the "exact rate that keeps us from feeling that movement" and yet, when men walked on the moon, which spins (rotates) at a different rate, that rate too was the exact rate that kept them from feeling the movement?

We may never know these answers.

Does the US Torture Enough?

2006-03-29T11:21:00.000-08:00

If you are interested in the absurd, FoxNews never fails. Covering the Moussaoui trial, FoxNews speculated that our torture policy was too late in coming.

Notice the specialty of FoxNews, their leading caption.

"Could 9/11 have been avoided if Moussaoui was tortured?"

There is a disconnect in the logic of the right when they assert that our "unalienable rights" are God given and not merely created by the laws of a government, and yet they refuse to respect those rights unless you are a citizen, and a friendly one at that, to this government. If these rights are given by God by virtue of merely being created in his image, do they not apply to citizens and non-citizens alike? On the other hand, were these rights to merely be gifts from the benevolent state, such a policy of selective application would have better support.

Half Man, Half Machine

2006-03-29T11:19:00.000-08:00

Scientists have successfully fused neurons (brain cells) to computer chips. This fusion is not merely a physical bond but also a functional one. The microchip was able to record signals sent from the neurons and capacitors on the microchip in turn, stimulated the neurons.

This work is fascinating. The possibilities that immediately come to mind are the possible uses of this technology for people with spinal cord injuries (re-establishing severed neuronal pathways) and alzheimers (substituting for dead or non-functional dopamanine producing neuronal cells in the region of the brain called the substantia nigra).

Regressive Environmental Policy

2006-03-17T23:23:00.000-08:00

EPA policy which demands that refineries, power plants, and factories, when they modernize install up to date emission controls. A priority of the Bush administration has been to change change these policies to allow these factories, refineries, and power plants to upgrade their facilities without having to comply with modern emission rules and requirements.

A federal appeals court this week issued a ruling stating that such a change in policy requires Congressional action and cannot simply be enacted by a change in agency policy.

The fear among those who favor protection of the environment is that an enormous loophole will simply be created allowing industry to circumvent EPA regulations and environmental protection laws. So long as expansion or development of new facilities can be piggy-backed on or masked as renovation of an older facility, those improvements need not meet modern environmental standards.

A Supreme Court that is growing more and more conservative may or may not hear this case on a subsequent (and what would be final) appeal. Traditionally, an agency's position receives considerable deference and their policy would be overturned only if found to be clearly contradictory to the legislature's intent in enacting the statute. It is uncertain how they might decide this case were they to elect to hear it.

The lawsuit was filed by New York, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Movie Quote in Court Opinion

2006-03-09T12:53:00.000-08:00

A Bankruptcy court, two weeks ago, denied a Defendant's motion for "Incomprehensibility."

The Defendant's motion was titled: "Defendant's Motion to Discharge Response to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Response Opposing Objection to Discharge."

In an eight sentence opinion, the court denied the motion stating "the court cannot determine the substance, if any, of the Defendant's legal argument, nor can the court even ascertain the relief the Defendant is requesting."

Best of all, the court quoted, in a footnote, the movie "Billy Madison:"

"Mr. Madison, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul."

Ports Deal Folding?

2006-03-09T11:51:00.000-08:00

President Bush may miss an opportunity to exercise the veto power with Dubai Ports World announcing that "DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity."

What exactly that announcement means and whether any legislation will proceed through Congress is unclear at this time.

Dubai's Opulence

2006-03-02T12:36:00.000-08:00

There has been much news on Dubai recently (one of several emirates in the UAE). However, there is some fascinating news on the region regarding tourism and architecture.

By 2011, Dubai expects to have the following tourists sites completed:

- An underwater hotel (scheduled completion date, 2007)

- The tallest building in the world (at the time of completion, estimated at 2009)

- A spaceport for an American Space Tourism Company

- An indoor ski slope including bobsled runs (already in operation)

- The largest mall in the world, including 15 submalls, an aquarium, and a skating rink

- An ecotourism site reminiscent of the biodome

- A 3 billion square foot attraction known as "Dubialand" including "Sports City" which has facilities for golf, auto racing, polo, indoor rock climbing, skateboarding, other extreme sports, and various athletic stadia.

- A cluster of man-made island resorts shaped like the continents on a world map

- A series of island resorts (currently the largest man-made islands in the world) shaped like a palm tree.

For an amazing slideshow of photographs and concept drawings see here, and click on the slide show link, under the photo.

Utah's Attack on Evolution

2006-02-28T15:10:00.000-08:00

The Utah legislature rejected a bill that would have required biology teachers to tell student that the State did not endorse evolution and that it was not fact.

State Sen. Chris Buttars (R), argued that "it was time to rein in teachers who were teaching that man descended from apes and rattling the faith of students." Since when has it been the responsibility of the public school system to nurture the faith and religious beliefs of the students with modifications of curriculum.

Certainly Buttars would not contend that the pledge of allegiance should be removed in order to nurture the religious beliefs of those students who are Jehova's Witnesses and find taking oaths to be contrary to their religious beliefs.

Further support for Buttar's position was that he does not "believe that anybody in [the state Senate] really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape." Neither would I because it is simply not true - which brings me to the most important point regarding this controversy. Mr. Buttars is off by about 1 Million years.

Many like Mr. Buttars operate with a severe fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection and a complete unwillingness to consider the facts despite proven examples e.g., antibiotic resistance in bacteria, animal breeds (dogs, cats, and livestock), and plant breeding to produce larger and more productive strains (consider seedless watermelons).

Transgender Teacher Allowed to Teach

2006-02-28T15:00:00.000-08:00

When a school district decided to allowed a post-op transgender to resume teaching, many members of the community objected.

Among the complaints of some parents were:

- That children in the school -- which consists of kindergarten through sixth grade -- were not old enough to understand the concept of changing one's gender.

- One parent was "am appalled to have this issue brought into [his] child's psychology."

- Another parent predicted "chaos" at the school.

- Some, [laughably,] asserted that young children will be confused by the conflicting appearance of the teacher, who has a deep voice and masculine features but otherwise looks like a woman. (Who hasn't had that teacher?)

Too bad parents don't get in such an uproar when they hear that this countries children continue to lag behind other countries when it comes to quality of education. I guess as long as they aren't exposed to evolution and sexuality who cares what they learn, if they learn at all.

Abortion Debate

2006-02-21T17:18:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court will here a challenge to a Federal Law prohibiting Late Term Abortions.

Restrictions on abortions, under current Supreme Court precedent, must have an exception permitting them when the mother's life is at risk or she is facing dire health consequences such as severe blood loss, damage to vital organs, or infertility.

The law that is being challenged would expressly prohibit, with criminal sanctions against the doctors and the women, abortions even if taking no action will lead to infertility of the mother, inevitable death of the fetus, severe blood loss, and damage to vital organs. To avoid criminal punishment, the women and doctors would be required by law to wait to take action until the woman's life is in jeopardy.

Many are expecting for Roe v. Wade to fall under the Supreme Court as currently constituted.

US Gov't is Outsourcing National Security to Arab County - No Joke!

2006-02-19T18:11:00.000-08:00

Those in government frequently assert that the primary role of a government is to protect its public. Such appeals are made when it comes to funding the military, domestic wiretapping, continuing the USA PATRIOT Act, and invading Iraq. There is another issue where this assertion is being made, but this time by everyone (Democrats and Republicans) except the White House.

A deal from "a secretive government panel" is nearing completion to allow a company controlled by the United Arab Emirates to operate the ports of New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami. Is this a bad dream?

Alarmingly no, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff stated that "Congress is welcome to look at this and can get classified briefings." He justified this move stating, "We have to balance the paramount urgency of security against the fact that we still want to have a robust global trading system."

Security or Money, Mr. Chertoff?

Mr. James Lewis, who worked with the secretive U.S. committee at the State and Commerce departments stated that "It's in Dubai's interest to make sure this runs well. There is strong economic incentive to be sure these worries never materialize."
It's in Dubai's interest, Mr Lewis? I would say that America's interest is not worth taking the risk you propose. Saudi Arabia is also considered a "friend" and "close ally in the war on terror," does that mean we should trust them to protect the American people? I'd go so far as to say that I wouldn't leave it to the British to protect the American people.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, on CBS's "Face the Nation," said, "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history," said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-South Carolina.

"Federal law requires the president or his designee investigate the impact on national security of a foreign acquisition if the acquisition 'could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the United States that could affect the national security of the United States," reads a letter to Treasury Secretary John Snow, requesting that his committee conduct a full 45-day investigation of the transaction, saying it's essential for national security. The letter was signed by Sens. Schumer, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., as well as Reps. Chris Shays, R-Conn., Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., and Mark Foley, R-Fla (See the entire letter).

Whats wrong with the United Arab Emirates (UAE)? (All of the following points come from this FoxNews Article)

- The FBI has also concluded that the UAE's banking system filtered much of the money used for the operational planning before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and many of the hijackers traveled to the United States through the UAE.

- When the international community is attempting to bring Iran's nuclear abilities to a halt, the United Arab Emirates are talking about expanded trade opportunities with Iran.

- This is . . . a country that still sees the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan and still fails to recognize Israel as a sovereign state

- It would be the job of this UAE controlled company to hire security personnel for the ports - can you see the potential danger?

To all of this Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said, "I would hope that our friends in Abu Dhabi would not be offended by the fact that in our democracy, we debate these things."

We certainly didn't worry about what our friends in Europe thought about us invading Iraq - that, after all, was a matter of national security (and I agreed with that justification when I thought it was a matter of national security).

Concealment and Failed Spin

2006-02-18T11:09:00.000-08:00

A Yahoo News article discusses the initial reports and the facts of Cheney's hunting accident as they are now known. The vice president said that he delayed reporting the incident because he wanted to confusing details to come out right. That didn't work.

Blame

Initial reports from Mrs. Armstrong, the ranch owner, and from the Scott McClellan, the White House Press Secretary, were that Mr. Whittington failed to properly call out his location. "The vice president did everything right," Mrs. Armstrong said, adding that Whittington's mistake "exposed him to getting shot." McClellan later said that "the protocal was not followed by Mr. Whittington."

When Cheney spoke, he stated that "you can't place the blame anywhere else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."

Drinking

Mrs. Armstrong indicated that "No one was drinking . . . No, zero, zippo." She later stated that there were beers in the hunters' cooler but she didn't think anyone had any.

Mr. Cheney said, "I had a beer at lunch."

Victim's Condition

It was initially reported that he was "just fine," and cracking jokes with nurses.

Just fine is subjective. After being shot Whittington was conscious but not verbally responsive and he apparently was not cracking jokes with the nurses. Further, it is now clear that some pellets entered his chest cavity resulting in damage to his heart.

Hunting Licenses

The White House initially stated that all licenses were up to date.

Apparently Cheney was missing a stamp allowing hunting of Upland Game Birds.

Disclosure

The article continues by discussing communications with the White House and eventual disclosure to the public. Apparently even the White House didn't know what had happened until late that evening. Scott McClellan, the Press Secretary who was going to have to explain this to the press and public, was not informed until the next morning.

Senate Plans No Hearings On Domestic Surveillance

2006-02-17T17:54:00.000-08:00

CNN reports that the Senate will not conduct hearings probing into the Executive Branch's domestic wiretapping program.

Committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) said that "An investigation at this point . . . would be detrimental to this highly classified program and our efforts to reach some accommodation with the administration."

No committee vote was taken as to whether an investigation should be pursued.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) said "It is ... more than apparent to me that the White House has applied heavy pressure in recent days and recent weeks to prevent the committee from doing its job" (see here for me information).

Rockefeller further argued that "The very independence of this committee is called into question as we are continually prevented from having a full accounting of prewar intelligence on Iraq; the CIA's detention, interrogation and rendition program; and now, the NSA's warrantless surveillance and eavesdropping program."

I'm Sorry I Got in the Way of Your Bullets

2006-02-17T17:53:00.000-08:00

a www.cnn.com headline reads:

Shooting victim apologizes to vice president

As well he should.

Ken Starr Fabricates Evidence to Free a Convicted Murderer

2006-02-14T16:32:00.000-08:00

Ken Starr, a former federal Appeals Court Judge, is best known for his role as the special investigator in the Clinton Whitewater controversy, and then, of course, pursuing the Monica Lewinsky issue. Now, however, he is the Dean of Pepperdine's Law School.

Starr criticized President Clinton because, as he put it, the President "chose deception."

Friday, cnn reported that "Lawyers for a death row inmate, including . . . Kenneth Starr, sent fake letters from jurors asking California's governor to spare the man's life."

When the jurors were shown the letters that were supposedly sent by them, they all denied that the letters were theirs. The article goes on to say that, "On Friday, the San Joaquin District Attorney's office sent [Gov.] Schwarzenegger a new batch of sworn statements from five of those jurors saying they not only still supported capital punishment for Morales, but had never spoken with the defense investigator who claimed to have secured their signatures."

So much for the ultra-conservative Ken Starr being tough on crime.

Cheney's Victim

2006-02-14T16:24:00.000-08:00

Contrary to earlier reports, Vice President Dick Cheney's shooting victim apparently suffered much more serious wounds than previously indicated.

What FoxNews determined consituted a "spraying" rather than a shooting, appears to have resulted in a "BB" (FoxNews's term) from Mr. Cheney's shotgun becoming lodged deep in the chest of Mr. Whittington, causing atrial fibrillation, which resulted in Mr. Whittington having a minor heart attack and a subsequent transfer to Intensive Care.

On Sunday, Cheney's office reported that Cheney was "pleased Mr Whittington is in good shape and good spirits." Other reports described that the shots "broke the skin," and "knocked him silly. But he was fine." And of course, these reports were delayed for nearly a full day. While there is no indication at the time that any of this information was known to be false at the time the statements were made, certainly these statements understate the potential seriousness of the situation - the "BB's" did in fact break the skin as well as the body well, entering the chest cavity.

FoxNews also reported that "Cheney was legally hunting with a license he purchased in November, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department spokesman Steve Lightfoot said. The vice president flew back to Washington on Sunday evening, according to his office." -- Apparently that was not entirely true, either.

I certainly do not believe that there are any sinister circumstances involved regarding the event, but the handling of the situation after it occurred has been inadequate, it lacks forthrightness and openness. It was obviously a very unfortunate accident, what was the need for concealment?

My question is - say the poor guy dies because of the damage to his heart, that would certainly constitute involuntary manslaughter.

Was the White House delay merely to assess the degree of spin necessary for this new mistake? I think the seriousness of this event and the clear pattern of disclosure (or non-disclosure) by the White House demonstrates a how they really operate and why trusting them has become difficult - even for people like me who once their supporter.

NASA PR Officer: Follow-Up

2006-02-11T00:01:00.000-08:00

George Deutsch, 24, was given a job as a PR officer at NASA after having worked on Bush's 2004 Presidential Campaign. He recently courted controversy when he emailed NASA scientists that "The theory that the universe was created by a 'big bang' is just that - a theory. It is not proven fact; it is opinion. Yes, the scientific community by and large may share this opinion, but that doesn't make it correct . . . It is not Nasa's place, nor should it be, to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator" (emphasis added).

He was also accused of "tr[ying] to keep the agency's top climate scientist from speaking publicly about global warming." The New York Times reported that he defended himself by saying that "the scientist, James E. Hansen, exaggerated the threat of warming and tried to cast the Bush administration's response to it as inadequate."

The Times also reported that "Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer who told The Times of several conversations in which Mr. Deutsch said his job was to 'make the president look good.'"

Further, Texas A&M reported that while Mr. Deutsch did in fact attend their university, he never received any degree from there, as he had contended in his resume. He defended himself saying that he wrote that he had the degree because he had anticipated graduating.

Deutsch has resigned from his post at NASA.

Defeating Science and Reason

2006-02-05T13:48:00.000-08:00

Fighting Against Science

NASA officials have recently been speaking with and forwarding their emails to the NY Times out of frustration over continuing pressure from White House appointees to modify official statements to advance White House policies.

The Big Bang

George Deutsch "a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the 'war room' of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M" distributed a memo demanding that the word "theory" be placed after "Big Bang" because the Big Bang is merely an "opinion" and "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator." He further rebuked the scientists declaring that "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue."

Since when has advancement of religious issues been part of NASA's mission? And since when has a journalism degree qualified one to make decisions regarding dissemination of scientific facts and making of scientific policy?

Further, A federal court in Pennsylvania, just last month, concluded that intelligent design in not based in fact and is not a scientific theory. This ruling (by a federal judge appointed by Bush) also relied on the testimony of the creator of the intelligent design idea, Michael Behe, who, stated that he developed the idea "based on theological and philosophical and historical factors." He was later asked if there was factual support for intelligent design conceded that there was "little" (see the full trial transcript).

If there is concededly little factual support for intelligent design how can we possibly demand that NASA statements conform to its claims? And we wonder why American students continue to fall behind other countries in math and science. (see this article which describes that "If current trends continue, by 2010, only four years from now, more than 90 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will live in Asia.")

Support at the Vatican for Darwin and Evolution

To the surprise of many, the Vatican has taken positions in support of evolution and that intelligent design is not science.

In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that evolution was "more than a hypothesis" and went on to say that evolution is as "an effectively proven fact." The official position of the Church has been that it has "accepted evolution as solid science but objected to the way some Darwinists concluded that it proved God did not exist." Further, "Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, is quoted as saying the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution are 'perfectly compatible' if the Bible is read correctly." Fascinating!

Just two weeks ago "The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the 'intelligent design' theory as non-scientific" (see also here and here).

Climate Change

The White House has also been pressuring NASA scientists to watch what they say when it comes to climate change. "Scientist, James E. Hansen, [said] he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for prompt action to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. He and intermediaries in the agency's 350-member public-affairs staff said the warnings came from White House appointees in NASA headquarters."

The article goes on to stated that "there were several other instances in which political appointees had sought to control the flow of scientific information from the agency."

Is this how science and great societies advance?

Science has always had a universally understood and well accepted policy of openness, which is intended to allow critical analysis and discussion of all available facts in order to advance our understanding of natural phenomena. This openness is starkly contradictory to current political policies and we are seeing the consequence of suppression of information, the retardation of progress.

"Shocks the Conscience"

2006-02-02T19:11:00.000-08:00

A group of New Yorkers is suing the EPA and Christine Todd Whitman, the Director of the agency after 9/11 for providing incorrect and misleading assertions that the area was safe for them to return while airborne contaminants remained present.

A District Court just ruled today that Whitman did not have qualified immunity because "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws."

The article goes on to note that "The EPA's internal watchdog later found that the agency, at the urging of White House officials, gave misleading assurances."

So much for the government keeping us safe from harm.

"Faith Based" AIDS Research?

2006-01-29T17:13:00.000-08:00

The Associated Press reports that "President Bush's $15 billion effort to fight AIDS has handed out nearly one-quarter [23% or roughly $3.45 Billion] of its grants to religious groups, and officials are aggressively pursuing new church partners that often emphasize disease prevention through abstinence and fidelity over condom use."

We must ask if these grants are being used to truly support AIDS prevention and research or is AIDS being deceptively used as a cover for funnelling money to politically preferred charities at the expense of fighting a devastating disease while retaining the politcal benefit of an apparently hollow claim of fighting AIDS.

At the very least, tax-payers should be questioning whether this is an efficient use of tax-payer money.

Some of the organizations receiving such grants are:

"Samaritan's Purse, which is run by [Billy] Graham's son, Franklin. It says its mission is 'meeting critical needs of victims of war, poverty, famine, disease and natural disaster while sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ.'"

"World Relief, founded by the National Association of Evangelicals. It won $9.7 million for abstinence work in four countries."

There is much, much more information in this article, please consider reading it if you are interested in what you are hearing.

Judicial Fidelity

2006-01-29T17:11:00.000-08:00

For any interested in reading an article that describes good examples of how neither side of the political ideaological spectrum behaves consistently with regard to constitutional interpretation, see the article "Euthanize Federal Mission Creep" at www.reason.org.

The article discusses how conservative justices who frequently seek to limit the power of the federal government - over issues such as environment regulations, gun control, and labor regulations - will choose to expand the power of the federal government (allow it to "creep" into areas of traditionally state authority) over other matters they don't trust states with, such as assisted suicide, medical marijuana laws, etc.

Of course, the opposing argument is that liberal judges prefer federal protection for abortion rights and civil rights and are willing to accept expansive federal regulation on environmental issues, gun control, etc., and yet balk at the exercise of federal authority over those laws restricting the use of medical marijuana or assisted suicide.

What an Idiot

2006-01-29T17:08:00.000-08:00

Ann Coulter, a right wing darling and FoxNews favorite offered her recommendation for "improving" the Supreme Court: "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee . . . That's just a joke, for you in the media." That's fuckin' hilarious, but of course, murder jokes always kill right (no pun intended)? You're shooting fish in a barrel Ann, can you do any better than that?

After very little searching, I found that indeed she can. The reservoir of Ann Coulter's brilliance is plentiful. Consider some of the thoughts of someone the conservative Media Research Center selected as a "Conservative Journalist of the Year"a few years ago, including:

The crack cocaine problem "has pretty much gone away."

Referring to 9/11, she stated that "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

"Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave....We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males."

"[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."---Rivera Live 8/2/99

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."---Hannity & Colmes, 8/17/99 (See US Constitution, 24th Amendment, prohibits poll taxes - additionally, literacy tests were historically used to prevent blacks from voting.)

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01 (See US Constitution, 19th Amendment)

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

"We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."---Equal Time

"It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."---The Case Against Bill Clinton, Coulter's 1998 book.

Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."---MSNBC 7/27/97

"If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. ... Don't pray. Learn to use guns."---Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."---Hannity & Colmes 8/24/01.

"Originally, I was the only female with long blonde hair. Now, they all have long blonde hair."---CapitolHillBlue.com 6/6/00

"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."---TV Guide 8/97

"The swing voters---I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "---Beyond the News, Fox News Channel, 6/4/00

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97

Reading Your Thoughts

2006-01-29T17:07:00.000-08:00

Like the Republican party once used to, I believe that government involvement and investigation into the personal lives of Americans should be extremely limited.

Under President Bush's eavesdropping program the NSA may "listen in on phone calls and read e-mails of Americans suspected of communicating with terrorists." This administration refuses to say how many are affected, how they decide who is investigated, or if the program has produced any intelligence.

The NSA (nicknamed "Never Say Anything") is the largest of the US's 15 intelligence agencies.

The question I am left to ask is what evidence does it take for one to become "suspected of communicating with terrorists?" Does an email that includes a word such as "terrorism" or "al-Qaida" trigger such an investigation? Should it?

Female Detainees

2006-01-29T17:05:00.000-08:00

In Iraq, women married to men who are suspected of being insurgents have been detained and jailed (one a nursing mother) in order to gain "leverage" over their husbands to pursuade them to turn themselves in to American forces, according to documents recently released by the Pentagon.

Is this how we are fighting for the "hearts and minds" of the muslim world? I can't help but think that with the full force and attention of the US Military, such tactics are not required and appear likely to be harmful to our ultimate goal of defeating terrorism and anti-American sentiment.

If we really want to defeat terrorism, shouldn't we make finding alternate sources of energy a greater priority and seriously pursue that course?

For copies of emails between officers regarding such detention released under the Freedom of Information Act, follow this link.

Important, Please Read.

2005-12-16T01:02:00.000-08:00

The following is copied from a post by Orin Kerr at http://volokh.com. This is significant information which everyone must at least make themselves aware of.

Of judicial appointments Bush has said, "Federal judges have the duty to interpret the Constitution and the laws faithfully and fairly, to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans, and to do these things with care and with restraint."

Apparently, Bush does not think the executive should exercise such restraint or interpret the Constitution fairly and faithfully.

As you read this consider the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . "

---------

Domestic Surveillance By the NSA?: James Risen and Eric Lichtblau break a tremendously important story in tomorrow's New York Times about a secret program that has permitted the NSA to spy without a warrant inside the United States. The story begins:

"Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."
Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications."
The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches."

How much monitoring is occurring?

"Here's what the article says: While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time."

Is this legal, you're wondering? The article offers this:

"Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation.

"The legal opinions that support the N.S.A. operation remain classified, but they appear to have followed private discussions among senior administration lawyers and other officials about the need to pursue aggressive strategies that once may have been seen as crossing a legal line, according to senior officials who participated in the discussions."

According to the story, some officials objected, and DOJ audited the program:

"Some agency officials wanted nothing to do with the program, apparently fearful of participating in an illegal operation, a former senior Bush administration official said. before the 2004 election, the official said, some N.S.A. personnel worried that the program might come under scrutiny by Congressional or criminal investigators if Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, was elected president."

---------

This is significant information for anyone who worried that our freedoms were being eroded at home while Americans are dying abroad under that very banner.

Further, I'd like to make a specific point as to the comment: "the need to pursue aggressive strategies that once may have been seen as crossing a legal line." Regarding the Constitution, conservatives famously argue that the Constitution is NOT a "living document" that evolves with the times but that it should be applied as the framers would have intended at the time of drafting. Therefore, under that philosophy, there can be no policy that was unconstitutional a few years ago but suddenly now fits well within the Constitution's boundaries.

In fact, it is not that such practices are now constitutional, the truth of the matter is that now, the Administration merely disregards the boundaries the Constitution places on their exercise of power.

What is Integrity?

2005-12-10T22:46:00.000-08:00

According to Merriam-Webster the most looked-up word by users of their online dictionary service this year was "Integrity!"

What does it say about the condition of this country when so many people don't know the meaning of that word? Of course not all internet users are American, just most of them.

Number ten on the list was "inept."

Continued Persecution of Christians

2005-12-10T15:55:00.000-08:00

At the University of Kansas a professor stepped down from his post as Department of Religious Studies chair after comments he made in an email to members of a student organization became public.

This professor was scheduled to teach a course next spring called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies" in response to the recent changes in Kansas State Department of Education policy that will allow teaching of intelligent design in science classes.

In the email the professor stated that a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in [religious fundamentalists'] big fat face."

One could obviously make a reasonable argument that his presentation of the material might be one-sided. Unquestionably a foolish thing to say knowing such statements could become public, and apparently a dangerous thing to say in America these days.

Driving early Monday morning, the Professor realized that he was being followed. He pulled over and two men stepped out of their truck and beat the professor with their fists and a metal object and made reference to the controverial course. The professor suffered bruises on his face and arms.

In investigating the attack, the Sheriff's office seized the professor's car, searched his office, and seized his computer. Perhaps the attackers are hiding in there.

Merry Christmas to the Free People of America!

Persecution

2005-12-06T10:01:00.000-08:00

Cries about persecution are at a fever pitch. You can hear constant assertions that Christians are being persecuted in the United States and that Christmas is being suppressed.

FoxNews chastized Walmart in several shows and articles (despite their deep love and frequent defense of the corporation) for preferring the greeting "Happy Holidays" over "Merry Christmas." Strange that FoxNews asserts that corporations should be free to refuse to hire or may fire certain people (think anti-discrimination laws) but they should not be free to select the holiday greeting they prefer.

Bill O'Reilly recently exclaimed that "what [principals and school boards are] trying to say is that we don't like the 82 percent of Americans who believe that Jesus was God or the son of God." One problem for O'Reilly to deal with is that school boards are democratically elected. he preaches the infallability of elections and yet hates the product. Besides, how are these school boards getting elected over the will of "82 percent of Americans?"

Regardless, Bill bluntly states "Now there is an anti-Christian bias in this country and it is more on display in Christmas season than any other time." Sure Bill, just look around, you can hardly tell it is the Christmas season at all.

Another Fox News Anchor, John Gibson, has recently published a book called "War on Christmas" in which he asserts that "even the colors red and green are under attack" and that "You can't say 'Merry Christmas' at a school or office anymore." I have seen no evidence to support either of these statements but he makes the assertions nonetheless.

"Not since Stalin's time have Christians been so savagely persecuted" asserts Pat Buchanan on WorldNetDaily.com. Another article they published this week bears the headline "CRIMINALIZING CHRISTIANITY: How America's founding religion is becoming illegal"

Dishing it Out:

In the midst of all of these cries of injustice from the right, we see them pressing another agenda.

"Christian group pulls Wells Fargo accounts: Focus on the Family objects to donation to gay rights group" A headline reads today from the San Francisco Chronicle. The articles describes that "Focus on the Family's move follows a recent spate of conservative boycotts and other actions against large companies that support gay and lesbian causes."

Conservative groups have also sought boycotts of Proctor & Gamble because they advertise during the TV show "Will and Grace" and against the Walt Disney Company for hosting "Gay Days" at their theme parks.

Today, Ford Motor Co. announced that is will no longer advertise in magazines targeting gay readers. Ford denies that the move is the result of pressure from Christian groups, but the American Family Association began a boycott in May, which it cancelled last week asserting that "we feel that our concerns are being addressed."

Today the Supreme Court will hear a case brought by Harvard Law School that asserts that Law Schools may refuse to allow the military to recruit on campus unless they commit to a non-discrimination hiring policy, like all other firms who recruit on campuses are required to do. As of now, the government seeks to withdraw funding provided to such schools if they refuse to allow the recruiters on campus. The schools assert that they should not be an instrument to the government's discrimination in order to get the funding.

----

With all of this in mind, I wonder who it truly is who is being persecuted and who is doing the persecuting.

Should WalMart say Merry Christmas to Gay people this year? Doesn't the right usually decry this victim mentality anyway?

"Us" versus Them

2005-12-04T16:32:00.000-08:00

Some on the right have a strong desire to retain a division between the "haves" and "have-nots." We consistently find that policy and attitudes from the right pursue such a doctrine of exclusion and preservation of a caste system based on socioeconomic status.

Consider Higher Education

Our tax dollars fund public institutions of higher education and yet many still cannot afford to go, most cannot afford without financial aid. Bush and Congress are now seeking to reduce funding for education and funding for federal student loans. This means that tuition costs will rise, state taxes to fund these institutions may rise, and fewer people will be able to get loans. While every taxpayer will be putting more into education, only those who can pay out of their own pockets will be able to attend these "public" schools.

A conservative radio talk show host, Michael Medved argued that there is no justification for having the government subsidize student loans at all.

Isn't a more educated population better for the whole country?

When Bush Administration officials said that outsourcing jobs was "a good thing" they based their argument on the idea that those are unskilled jobs, and that skilled jobs will remain. Yet, we also see Bush's policy that only those Americans who can themselves afford the training for such skilled positions have a place in this America.

The average person is left to fend for himself.

Propaganda of Division and Exclusion

Pundits on the right claim that the "leftist elite" is condescending toward the average American and doesn't respect them. We see however, from FoxNews and other sources, that if you disagree with them, you too, have no place in their America.

Consider Sean Hannity's book "Deliver us from Evil," the evil he argues against is not only terrorism but also "the modern Democratic Party," "leftists," and "liberalism." Hannity would have you believe that nearly half of congress and half of the voting US public are in fact "Evil" by the nature of their ideas.

(Ironically, the cover of Hannity's book has a picture of him with the Statue of Liberty over his right shoulder, I'm not sure whether he thanks the French for their gift to the United States in his book or not.)

Ann Coulter has written several books on the subject as well. Her book "Treason" which does not discuss the impropriety of giving the names of under cover intelligence agents to the media for publication as political revenge, but instead argues that “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason.” Coulter says, “Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don’t.”

Another point of irony, accusing someone of a crime that one know's the accused did not commit is slander, which happens to me the name of Coulter's previous book, so I guess she must know what she is talking about.

A newer book by the same author is called "How to Talk to a Liberal (if you must)." It was the right saying that the left was condescending wasn't it?

Either the righties aren't listening to what they are saying or they are satirical geniuses.

Us versus Them

Why is the right at war with the rest of America?

When Congressman Murtha, a 37 year veteran of the Marine Corps, sought for Congress to issue a resolution that American troops should be brought home as soon as practicable, the Republicans changed his resolution to a demand for immediate withdrawal and he was called a "coward" by Congresswoman, Jean Schmidt (R).

What happened to the popular mantra "Support the Troops?" Does that exclude veterans? It shouldn't.

Patriotism of Dissenters

2005-11-13T14:03:00.000-08:00

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."
- Benjamin Franklin

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president . . . It is unpatriotic not to oppose [the President] to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1908

----
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
- President Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- President Bush, March 13, 2002

Notice that these statements came 6 months to the day apart. So much for "not rest[ing] until we find him."

To the extent that he has and continues to fail in his duty to execute the "Number one priority" of the country, I do not support this President.
----

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt

Suppression of Dissent

2005-11-13T13:45:00.000-08:00

A blog called "Dr. Sanity" posted its "psychological assesment" of anyone who hates Bush. The following series of quotes originally comprise a single paragraph that I have broken up merely to interject my own thoughts and interpretation.

They argue: "the psychology of some of the Bush Haters is pretty cut and dried. They hate Bush because he stands between them and the implementation of their collectivist "utopian" vision."

I know nothing of this "collectivist 'utopian' agenda" and they don't explain, but let's read on.

The author then states: "I have no time to waste on them, except to note that their intentions are deliberately and decidedly malevolent toward this country."

Thus, they equate 'hating Bush' with hating America and wishing harm upon it. Let's read on.

"They want it to fail at anything and everything it does and they openly cheer for the barbarians at the gate."

Who are these people who have "cheered" terrorists "at the gate?" I've heard nothing of this before. Certainly they are not speaking about those who carry out the the acts because that would be redundant to say that they cheer themselves, besides it is not the terrorists who they claim have a "collectivist utopian agenda."

"They are indistinguishable from the barbarians we are actively fighting."

If you 'hate' Bush you are "indistinguishable from" a terrorist.

They never explain what constitutes hating Bush. To what extent may I disagree before you label me or any other American a terrorist?

----
The mantra of the right is and has always been "you are with us or you are against us." To the Bush/righty sycophants, that means if you are not fully aligned with their agenda, you too are the enemy.

I contend that this attitude is dangerous. Consider the words of Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief, Herman Goering "the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."

The Pulse of the People

2005-11-10T21:03:00.000-08:00

Dover Pennsylvania School Board, who is currently a defendant in litigation over teaching intelligant design, saw eight of its nine seats face election this week. All eight seats were won by candidates running specifically on an anti-intelligent design platform in a town where 70% of registered voters are Republican.

This would certainly indicate that the public disfavors teaching intelligent design in public schools, and not for any hostility toward religion. Upon learning of their victories, the candidates, gathered at the home of one of the candidates, "cheered, shed tears, [and] prayed." One supporter, Jill Reiter, explained “My kids believe in God. I believe in God. But I don’t think it belongs in the science curriculum." Further, the spokesman for the coalition of candidates is himself a Reverand.

Other sentiments, however, still prevail. Pat Robertson warned Dover citizens that "if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city." Speaking directly to the voting citizens of Dover on behalf of God he continued with his assertion to them that: "you just voted God out of your city" and if you find yourselves having problems "don't ask for His help because he might not be there."

Why Not Intelligent Design.

2005-11-09T12:39:00.000-08:00

The argument for teaching intelligent design is that there is insufficient factual evidence to support evolution. Remarkably, when Michael Behe, the creater (no pun intended) of intelligent design, was asked whether there was factual support in favor of intelligent design, he conceded that there was "little".

Behe's own argument in favor of intelligent design (insufficient factual support) is more effective against his own position than supportive of it.

Education and Ideological Momentum

2005-11-08T17:42:00.000-08:00

The Kansas State Board of Education has adopted standards to promote the teaching of intelligent design in schools. They follow the lead of a school district in Pennsylvania that is now embattled in litigation over the issue.

To adopt such standards, Kansas's Board of Education had to change their definition of "Science."

Meanwhile, the US continues to lag behind other nations in Math and Science (14th and 8th, respectively).

College science courses will not teach intelligent design. This leads to at least two problems:

1) Students who do not pursue further scientific studies will have a missunderstanding of the subject that will never be corrected. The scientific community completely disaffirms the idea of intelligent design. Even Michael Behe, who developed the idea based on religious beliefs ("I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors." What? Not scientific facts, Professor?), states that he is glad he waited until after he got tenure before advocating the idea.

2) Those who do pursue further scientific studies will have to then unlearn what they were previously taught. College level science courses will not be teaching any doctrine or theory based on intelligent design, but instead will rely heavily on evolution by natural selection - first introduced in 1859 by Charles Darwin, and obviously, subject to and withstood more than 150 years of scientific scrutiny.

When asked, isn't it true that intelligent design has little support in scientific fact, Behe conceded.

Who would want to send their children to a school where their science courses spend time teaching ideas that "ha[ve] little support in scientific fact?"

More of What Your Kids Should Not Be Allowed to Learn

2005-11-02T23:18:00.000-08:00

A group of parents sued a Palmdale California school dictrict seeking damages suffered when the school taught their children about sex. The claim was that parents should have the exclusive right to talk to their children about sex.

Certainly, if that were the case, parents would have a claim against anyone who might discuss sex with their kids, even their children's friends(or more accurately, they could sue their kids' friend's parents).

I'm not even going to address the endless issues regarding how they'd expect to conduct biological education (should animal and plant reproduction be off limits too) or the free speech restrictions that would arise from such a conclusion.

Besides, isn't it the right that is complaining about a litigation explosion and the left overrunning institutions of education?

The Secret Goals of the Intelligent Designs Proponents

2005-11-02T21:12:00.000-08:00

Surely you are aware that a Pennsylvania school district is currently embroiled in litigation regarding a requirement that students learn the so-called "intelligent design" explanation for the current state of nature in biology classes.

This case took an interesting turn this week when Alan Bansell, the President of the school board, was caught in a lie, and caught by the judge no less. Bansell had stated in two depositions that an unknown donor gave $850 to buy textbooks on intelligent design. A former board member, William Buckingham, testified in court that he did not know who donated the money. Later in court however, Bansell admitted that the money was given to him, as a check (not very anonymous), from Buckingham himself (This walks very close to the line of conspiracy to commit perjury, aside from the two separate perjury charges these individuals should face - reminder, you are under oath in a deposition).

Covert Motives
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from endorsing a religious practice or ideaology or being employed to promote the religious ideals of some group or individuals. The school board argues as their defense that intelligent design does not promote a religious doctrine or ideaology - if it does, using public school to teach it is unconstitutional.

Former school board member Aralene Callahan testified that Bonsell, “while at a district-sponsored retreat in March 2003, said he ‘did not believe in evolution’ and that if evolution needs to be part of the science curriculum, it should be balanced out ‘50-50’ with lessons on creationism,” long ago declared unconstitutional. Buckingham also advocated at board meetings for a textbook that included the biblical view of creation. “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross,” he said. “Can’t someone take a stand for him?”

A fourth board member, Heather Geesey stated in a letter admitted as evidence at the trial that, "You can teach creationism without its [sic] being Christianity. It can be presented as a higher power." Sounds like she is advocating teaching religion under pretext. The same letter also commented that "Our country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles."

If you have any remaining doubt about the religious motives behind this policy consider the statement by Albert Mohler Jr., the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in defense of intelligent design: “Evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality . . . Debates over education, abortion, environmentalism, homosexuality and a host of other issues are really debates about the origin -- and thus the meaning -- of human life,” Mohler said.

Teaching evolutionary theory, Mohler argues, is a "rejection of traditional morality."

In court, the argument the argument is starkly different. There, the school board members proclaim that intelligent design is a scientific theory. Is it science or religion? And aren't they upset because evolution is 'only a theory'?

Is a Education a Priority

2005-10-31T11:33:00.000-08:00

What do you think the US Government's priorities should be?

House Republicans have decided that aid for student loans, funding for child support enforcement, and aid to companies who have been harmed by unfair trade practices of their competitors are not among the priorities of this government.

They are also looking to cut funding for food stamps, farm subsidies, and medicaid (although acknowledging that medical costs continue to skyrocket).

Bush commented that he was "pleased with the progress" he has seen in the House and he added "I encourage Congress to push the envelope when it comes to cutting spending."

George Miller (D-CA) called the plan which imposes new fees on students who consolidate their loans and higher fees on parents who must borrow on behalf of their children, a "raid on student aid"

The planned cuts have consistently been supported by votes falling strictly along party lines. Therefore, it would not be unfair to draw conclusions about the goals and interests of the parties based on their votes on these budget measures.

US Taxpayer Funding of the Education of only the World's Elite

One must acknowledge that the reduced assistance for the common family to fund their own or their children's educations is a strange and counter intuitive policy. We now find ourselves in a country where all taxpayers fund public universities that only the richest families can afford to send their children to.

Further, American student achievement in Science and Engineering continues to decline to a level that has prompted the President of Cornell University and the Dean of Stanford Medical school, among others, to note that American students are becoming less qualified for Graduate programs and American Universities. Currently, about 1-in-3 candidates in doctoral and postgraduate programs are foreign students.

Wouldn't most countries consider it a national security concern with a potentiality for alarming economic consequences if their taxpayer money was used to fund the education of Foreign Elites.

Perjury (R) versus Perjury (D)

2005-10-26T21:59:00.000-07:00

One is hard pressed to detect a more significant "flip-flop" in American politics than what is currently occurring with regard to the Bush Adminstration cronies; namely Karl Rove (Senior White House Advisor) and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff).

Condemnation of Perjury as Applied to President Bill Clinton:

While still governor, George W. Bush presented his argument why Clinton should be impeached: "The man lied."

Bill Frist has said: "There is no serious question that perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors . . . Today, we punish perjury and obstruction of justice at least as severely as we punish bribery. Apparently, the seriousness of perjury and obstruction of justice has not diminished over time. Indeed, our own Senate precedent establishes that perjury is a high crime and misdemeanor. The Senate has removed seven federal judges from office."

Senator DeWine (R-Ohio) says: "[A] decision to place one's hand on the Bible and invoke God's witness--and then lie--threatens the judiciary. The judiciary is designed to be a mechanism for finding the truth--so that justice can be done. Perjury perverts the judiciary, turning it into a mechanism that accepts lies--so that injustice may prevail."

Representative Henry Hyde (R): "Lying under oath is an abuse of freedom. Obstruction of justice is a degradation of law. There are people in prison for such offenses."

Representative Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R): "[S]omething needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray. And I think it is most important that we make that statement and that it be on the record for history.

I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury. And I don’t want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don’t want it to be faded in any way." (Feb., 2, 1999)

----
Now, the New interpretation of Perjury from the right under a Republican President (as coming from the party that declared themselves possessors of "a moral monopoly" in this country):

Representative Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R): ""I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime..."

A NY Times article also examines Republicans' efforts to now assert that what constituted a "high crimes and misdemeanor" as applied to Clinton, now is merely a legal technicality and not even immoral. This article indicates that "people sympathetic to Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said that indicting them would amount to criminalizing politics and that Mr. Fitzgerald did not understand how Washington works."

----

It is especially significant to note that this is an investigation regarding a leak of classified information. That information was required by federal statute to be kept confidential. Unusrprisingly, during the Clinton years, Ken Starr, or members of his prosecutorial staff, were responsible for nearly daily leaks of information from grand jury hearings; information required by Federal Statute to be kept confidential, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 (e)(2)(b). There, the prosecutor himself was guilty of committing the very crimes that are now being investigated by Mr. Fitzgerald.

The republicans got away with it then, is it any wonder that they haven't stopped violating this law when it comes to seeking political vengence?

Marriage Debate

2005-10-20T10:48:00.000-07:00

There is a fantastic discussion on http://volokh.com about the marriage debate. I find the argument presented by their guest blogger Maggie Gallagher (an author of many books on the subject) fascinating, intelligent, and unlightening, but ultimately unpersuasive.

She argues that marriage is primarily instituted as a means for child bearing and child rearing. Certainly these activities are most advisedly pursued within marriage. She also makes the critical point that while people have no need to reproduce, societies do. Consequently, societies must support child rearing and in the most ideal circumstances possible to ensure that healthy and productive populations persist.

----

I don't think we can accurately predict the impact of a change of the rules of marriage to include same sex couples without taking a pragmatic view of why people marry, not why the government wants people to marry (if the there is a differnce between the two).

I believe that there is a difference. Fewer people wait to have children until marriage, more people are getting divorced, more people are preparing for the potential of divorce with prenuptial agreements, and more people have children without a partner at all, and more people are bringing children into subsequent relationships.

If marriage is not treated by the public as a means for raising children, then I do not believe that allowing couples who cannot or do not plan on raising children in marriage or that the further diminishment of the symbolic significance of the association between marriage and child rearing will actually alter or significanlty affect marriage as we now know it. We know marriage as it is applied, not the ideal purposes that it could serve.

Were marriage primarily used as a means for having children this argument would unquestionably be determinative. However, since I believe that the public does not use marriage for the purpose in which it may have originally been created and employed by the state then a change in the state's reasoning for continuing to support it would alter the perception more than the reality and application of the "institution."

Of course, a debate on the issue of child rearing certainly implicates the question that if a heterosexual couple were unable or chose not to have children, what argument would allow them to still marry that would not likewise allow a homosexual couple to marry (an equal protection argument). If the childrearing argument is the tip of the marriage sword, then marriage should not be promoted without likewise requiring that it in fact be used to support that purpsoe of child rearing and not be used unless that goal is pursued by the couple.

The Quality of Journalism

2005-10-19T13:25:00.000-07:00

A Headline at www.cnn.com stated: Weakened Dam Stable but 'Extremely Volatile"

What? Am I losing my mind or does that headline not have any actual meaning? Isn't stable directly contradictory to volatile?

Definitions:
Stable - Resistant to change of position or condition; not easily moved or disturbed; Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation; Maintaining equilibrium; Enduring or permanent.
-- or -- A building for the shelter and feeding of domestic animals, especially horses and cattle

Volatile - Tending to vary often or widely; Inconstant; fickle; Ephemeral; fleeting.
-- or -- Evaporating readily at normal temperatures and pressures.

Perhaps the simple explanation is that the dam is in fact also "a building for the shelter of domestic animals" that is "evaporating readily at normal temperatures and pressures."

Intelligent in Design - ignorant in application

2005-10-13T01:30:00.000-07:00

A Pennsylvania School district has selected a policy of teaching in science classes that life on Earth so complex that an intelligent creator must be responsible for life as we know it.

I must object to the attempt to teach intelligent design in a science course because intelligent design is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts of natural selection.

The principal of natural selection relies on three critical facts:
1) Living individuals within a community have differences in their physical makeup
Hair color, pigmentation, any biological difference (it is undisputed that individuals differ).
2) These differences (at least some) are heritable (genetic)
Differences between individuals are inhereted from their parents (an undisputed fact)
3) Individuals within the community can produce more offspring than the community can support to survive
The familiar survival of the fittest argument

Application of these principals leads us to the logical conclusion that those individuals whose traits provide them with the greatest survival advantages (or more importantly, the greatest advantage in reproducing, i.e., passing on one's genes) will pass on those advantages traits (through their genes) to subsequent generations to a greater extent than will individuals whose genetic makeup leaves them with a survival (or reproductive) disadvantage.

Intelligent design mistakenly argues that the process of evolution is random. While a mutation in the genetic code may be random (e.g., the mere change from an "A" to a "T" or a "G" to a "C"), natural selection is not a random process. Natural selection is based on what traits provide the greatest advantage in survival and reproduction.

Example: A gazelle is a fast runner. This ability benefits them in their ability to avoid predators. If a gazelle has a genetic makeup that gives them greater speed than all other gazelles, that gazelle will have an easier time avoiding predators. That gazelle is likely to survive longer and reproduce more (say 10 babies). Its progeny, if that genetic make-up is inhereted, will also enjoy a greater ability to avoid predators and will pass those genes on as well (say each of those will produce 10 more babies). Over many generations more and more gazelles with this genetic makeup will fill the population of that community. Those gazelles with another genetic makeup that does not provide them this advantage will become the most susceptible to predation and will reproduce less.

This would result in one group becoming relatively more productive, more "fit" (the faster gazelles) while the others become comparatively less "fit" (the slower gazelles). Eventually, over many many generations, most of the population will be comprised of those with the genes for greater speed. Thus the species has evolved.

It is a simple and uncontriversial matter. It is only when beliefs arising from outside science are injected into the issue that any objection to the principal of natural selection arises.

Still, 140 Years Later

2005-10-03T13:42:00.000-07:00

One particular cultural battle persists, inexplicably in my opinion, in America these days. Displaying and honoring the confederate flag.

In Illinois, a memorial to confederate soldiers will soon be dedicated. This memorial is at a National Cemetary, where, understandable, the flying of the confederate flag is prohibited. It is allowable, however, to carry the flag in and out during dedications and similar ceremonies.

Organizers rejected the idea of flying the flags of the states of the confederacy instead.

I find the argument unavailing, that the confederate flag is part of US history that deserves honor. It certainly is a part of US history, equal in impact to all others who have sought to destroy or dismantle the United States.

The Confederacy's goal was not to uphold but to absolve itself of the Constitution that it ratified roughly 80 years earlier. The confederacy and symbols of support of the confederacy are as firm a contrast to American Patriotism as one could possibly conceive.

Benefits of Complacency

2005-10-02T00:01:00.000-07:00

It appears that the H5N1 strain of influenza that is generating so much fear in public health officials is now showing resistance to the antiviral medication Tamiflu, that gave hope of alleviating some of the danger of an impending pandemic.

The good news is, at least the US government saved some money by not buying much of that medication for this country.

Pestilence

2005-10-01T12:52:00.000-07:00

The World Health Organization (or Organisation in England) is concerned about a strain of influenza (a bird virus) that could infect and potentially kill between 5 and 150 Million people worldwide. It has demonstrated a mortality rate exceeding 57%.

The United States Dep't of Health and Human Services reports that there is a drug believed to effectively treat infection. However, the US government had not ordered enough of the antiviral drug Tamiful to treat even just First Repsonders and US Military Personnel. Why not? Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Michael Leavitt, says "I don't know the answer." He further explains that we are "not as prepared as we need to be." Worse, the US is "nowhere near the top" of the waiting list for that medication.

Although a vaccine may become available, expect at least a six-month delay, during which time it is predicted that 200,000 flu deaths could occur.

The preparations actually undertaken include plans that portions of cities may be quarentined and stadiums may be converted to "make-shift hospitals."

----

Questions
Did they not learn from the Flu vaccine shortage just last year?

Is the government prepared for anything? Since we can't rely on the government, how do we prepare ourselves?

With a bigger and more expensive government, have you ever, in your lifetime, felt less able to look to the US government for help in a disaster?

Corruption for Dummies

2005-09-28T20:21:00.000-07:00

The fundamentals of Tom Delay's unlawful conduct:

1) Texas law prohibits corporations from making donations to candidates for state political office

2) Tom Delay's Political Action Committee (PAC), Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC), accepted roughly $155,000 dollars from corporations.

3) That money was placed into one of the PAC's accounts, along with $35,000 dollars from other sources.

4) A check for $190,000 ($155,000+$35,000) was written, from that same account, to a specific arm of the Republican National Committee involved in local elections.

5) That committee was also furnished with a list of Texas state legislature candidates, republicans, and how much money each candidate was to receive.

6) The money was then distributed, as per instructions, from the RNC to the Texas candidates.

----
It is clear by the steps taken that those involved were accutely aware of the laws and took steps to circumvent those laws. Is that criminal? You tell me.

For more see:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050929/ap_on_go_co/delay_investigation;
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/28/delay/index.html; or
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170681,00.html

The Thriving Spoils System

2005-09-24T13:04:00.000-07:00

The Egregious Actions Involving Women's Health at the FDA
Dr. Norris Alderson was appointed to head Women's Health at the FDA. The FDA quickly removed his name from their list of Directors and denied that he was ever appointed. Why the scramble? Well, some say it is inappropriate to appoint a man to the position when so many qualified women are available - oh yes, and because Dr. Alderson is not an MD but a Veterinarian. WHAT???

The position became vacant on 8.31.05 when Dr. Susan Wood resigned complaining of politically motivated decisionmaking by the Commisioner, Lester Crawford - who thankfully resigned yesterday (9.23.2005). Decisions by the FDA are primarily based on scientific findings, but recently those findings have been completely ignored. Wood explained that "It was very unusual for the Commissioner of the FDA to overrule the recommendation of all of the professional staff" and yet that had become the practice.

Worried about the cost of Oil?
The Bush administration will look into it for you. The Federal Trade Commission will now be investigating oil prices. The man assigned to head the investigation is a former attorney for ChevronTexaco.

FEMA
You all know that Michael Brown was the Head of an International Arabian Horse Association which qualified him for his role as the director of FEMA.

Other Appointments:
A former timber lobbyist was appointed the head of the Forest Service; A former utility lobbyist was appointed to head the Clean Air Division of the EPA; A former lobbyist for an Agricultural Industry giant Monsanto, was appointed as the number 2 person at the EPA; A former lobbysit for the American Petroleum Institute was appointed to the Council on Environmental Quality.

----
For more information see the following sites:
http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=202508&pub=1&div=Opinion
http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lbushmonsanto.htm
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050920/fda_shenanigans.php

The Accumulating Troubles for Katrina Victims

2005-09-17T19:56:00.000-07:00

Victims of Hurricane Katrina who may have come to believe that they cannot count on the Federal government for help in the days following the disaster may soon have to face another obstacle, this time, one imposed by Congress just months ago - The new Bankruptcy Code.

The newly enacted Code "has been criticized by consumer-rights advocates and finance experts for turning the bankruptcy courts into 'collections agencies' for credit card companies such as MBNA." www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/katrina_bankruptcy03.html. It also expands the definition on non-dischargeable debts, diminshing the potential for relief in filing bankruptcy at all.

The new law has a particularly troubling impact on those who may have lost financial records since the new Code requires that debtors prove that a debt cannot be resolved by a means other than bankruptcy - the Code's so-called "means test." Without records, this burden may be difficult to surmount.

Displaced families are now finding themselves facing increasing credit card balances, continued mortgage payments for houses that may no longer exist, costs for alternate housing and new clothes and other necessities, all while many find themselves without employment, at least for the time being.

They need relief.

Federal Government's Response
In response to this universally acknowledged consequence, representative F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has refused to even hold a hearing as to whether it would be appropriate to waive the new bankruptcy laws as applied to Katrina victims. Sensenbrenner also holds the proud distinction of being one of 11 Republicans to vote AGAINST the hurricane relief package. www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/katrina_bankruptcy03.html.

Apparently the American public, in times of distress, are left to rely on the kindness and generosity of their fellow man and charitable corporations. To their credit (no pun intended), MBNA has announced that it will waive 2 months of payments and late fees for Katrina victims. VISA has also announced that it will offer more lenient terms to hurricane victims. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/14/katrina.credit.ap/

My Opinion
It is a sad circumstance where Americans are finding more sympathetic and fair treatment from credit card companies than from the officials we have elected to protect our interests.

Right Wing Judicial Activists

2005-09-15T12:55:00.000-07:00

Eighteen states have laws that require minors to get parental consent before they can have an abortion. These states are required to have an override mechanism where minors can get a judicial determination that they may pursue the procedure without parental endorsement.

Judge John McCarroll of Shelby County, Tennessee, and now many others, refuse to hear such petitions from minors arguing that he "could not in good conscience make a finding that would allow the minor to proceed with the abortion." (see Adam Liptak, Some Judges are Ducking Cases of Teenagers Seeking Abortions, California Law Student Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1 Sept. 2005.)

What would these same judges say if other judges overturned jury death penalty verdicts saying that they "could not in good conscience make a finding or grant an order that takes a human life."

This practice mirrors efforts by Pharmacists who have refused to fill prescriptions for birth control. Neither professional field however is charged with employing their own moral judgemnt in deciding whether or not to execute their duties. Judges specifically are under oath to uphold the law, not merely uphold those laws with which they agree.

This creates another problem where the workloads of other judges are becoming overwhelming because they are willing to be held to their duties. In a matter where time is of the essence (pregnancy), a clogged court system and the resulting delays could ultimately decide people's rights and access to abortion (in this case).

A judge's strike against a law cannot be used in order to supercede the efforts of the legislature, is a activist effort to avoid enforcement of the laws, and is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine (although in state courts this relies on the separation of powers defined by the state constitutions).

If a judge cannot execute his duty to uphold and enforce the laws enacted by the legislature then he is not fit for the bench and should never have been appointed.

This is the greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary (and our form of government) I have ever encountered.

Good Ol' Republican Ideals

2005-09-13T00:04:00.000-07:00

Up until two years ago I was Republican and I still support the ideals they continue to preach. I want smaller government and less government involvement in our personal lives. I want the federal government to allow states to regulate state issues where the federal government has no place and I want more streamlined and efficient beaurocracies.

Instead we have an unprecedented budget deficit, new and larger federal agencies (Dep't of Homeland Security, Intelligence Czar, etc.), The Partiot Act and other intrusions into our personal lives including Federal government involved in State law issues, and beaurocracies functioning as FEMA, FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security do.

FBI admits to having wasted approximately $104 million on a computer system eventually scrapped (worth $170 million) (see http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/fbi.computers/).

I don't need to tell what is wrong with FEMA (nor will I address the matter that more funds are being spent destroying Iraq than rebuilding New Orleans).

Homeland Security has been created, determined to be inefficient and ineffective, and ultimatley restructured all within 3 years (see http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1497). I'll remind you that Bush originally opposed the Dep't of Homeland Security, the 9/11 Commission, and the Intelligence Czar, only to later take credit for the creation of each. Let's ensure that he gets credit for their management as well.

Is anyone else beginning to question the conventional wisdom that Republicans are the party opposed to red tape and ineffective and inefficient beaurocracy?

And lastly, you have the Federal Government seeking to regulate who can be issued a marriage license as well as who is the next of kin when it comes to making private medical decisions (e.g., the Schiavo case), both unquestionably issues regulated solely by the states.

I still support the ideals I did two years ago, only now, I have come to realize that the Republicans never really did.

What Non-Proliferation Policy?

2005-09-10T23:37:00.000-07:00

The current US Administration has pursued the use of military force at great financial expense to the country and with a great loss of American lives. The reason for such a policy, the reason for these severe financial and psychological costs the US must endure, to prevent the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (as well as biological and chemical).

However, this administration somehow fails to follow its own rhetoric.

An AP report, published on Foxnews.com (no less) reports that "The Bush administration is continuing to push for development of an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead, but has yet to obtain congressional approval" (see "Pentagon Considers Nuclear Deterrent for Terroists, AP, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169052,00.html 9.10.2005).

What is the goal of such a program? The development of a Nuclear Warhead that can penetrate bunkers and fortifications buried deep within rock. Such a warheard does not sound like a means of deterrence against terrorism, but a potential weapon against certain terrorists. Such a weapon is only of value when it is used.

So, although the Bush Administration argues against Nuclear Proliferation and exercises its extensive war powers to promote that end, remember that they are lobbying Congress to spend tax dollars to create more and different Nuclear weapons and with a clear intent that they be used.

If the US had them already, do you trust that Bush would not have used them by now? If not, are you willing to take that risk?