Bush and War Powers

I'm glad Tom Daschle is talking. Assuming he is accurate - and I think he is - right after 9/11 Bush actually attempted to in effect declare war on the citizens of the United States.

According to the Washington Post article:

"The Bush administration requested, and Congress rejected, war-making authority "in the United States" in negotiations over the joint resolution passed days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to an opinion article by former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.)"
see article here

Here' more:

Daschle's disclosure challenges a central legal argument offered by the White House in defense of the National Security Agency's warrant less wiretapping of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. It suggests that Congress refused explicitly to grant authority that the Bush administration now asserts is implicit in the resolution.

And this:

"Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words 'in the United States and' after 'appropriate force' in the agreed-upon text," Daschle wrote. "This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused."

The main point to take from all of this is the fact that Bush sought and was rebuffed by congress in his attempts to make war on US citizens. The fact that he continued to use the NSA to spy on US citizens is the clearest example to date of his failure to protect and defend the constitution.

Where do we go from here? Is there really anything to be done? Or has King George, through deceit and lies become the autocratic leader of this country? Have we slipped into dictatorship, unaware, blind, carelessly ignoring the signs that our once great experiment in democracy is coming to an end?

One More Thought about Hillary

I see that Jeanine Pirro is abandoning her campaign for Sen. Clinton's Senate seat. Is Hillary about to run essentially unopposed?

That leads to the obvious question; if the Republican's can't find anyone to fight the good fight against Hillary in 2006, why do we think they will have any more success in 2008 if Hillary becomes the Democratic Presidential candidate?

While New York isn't a microcosm of the country, there are plenty of Republicans in the state, and she is popular among them too.

Hillary Clinton and Abortion

Hillary says that the just passed benefits cuts in Medicaid will ultimately lead to more abortions. Her reasoning - Medicaid cuts to contraception will lead to increased numbers of unwanted pregnancies and from there to more abortions.

I agree with her. It's not just rhetoric to say we want abortions to be rare and safe. Those words mean something. Providing contraceptions through Medicaid does cut the abortion rate. This is a fact. Abortions are safe for now. But, efforts to make abortion illegal again will almost certainly lead to unsafe abortions.

All of this is just common sense. And Hillary saying it doesn't make it any less logical. As a Pragmatic Liberal, I don't have any problems with Hillary's stance on abortion. In fact, hold the very same position philosophically. I wonder what the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party will think? It seems they have trouble liking anything she has to say.

Cheney back to take from the poor...

I see Vice President Cheney made it back in time to cut the benefits of those who need it. The amount comes to about $40 billion. Coincidentally (there's that coincidence again) the Republicans passed tax cuts that will give those earning more than $1 million that same $40 billion. All over the same 5 years.

I have to wonder, how do the Republicans sleep at night? They can't hide behind the philosophy of small government. The new Republican philosophy (maybe it was always there, just better hidden) is make the rich richer and keep the poor people poor, or better yet, make them poorer.

I guess it's not really all that new either. Going back to Reagan, the Republican Party has morphed into something completely unrecognizable to those who believed in small government, individual liberty, and keeping the government out of people's lives.

What he said...

Here's what Gonzales thinks about the secret wiretapping:

Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

But, what if the questioning had instead gone like this:

Q If FMA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute before you started arresting gay couples?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to the US Constitution, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, so we just went ahead and started prosecuting same-sex couples. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we would just start arresting them to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Don't think for a minute that the abuse of powers by the Bush administration is going to stop here. Bush will be president for three more years (baring an impeachment) and it's just a matter of time before he expands his list of people who are a threat to this country. If he is not slapped down hard on this issue, it's only going to get worse.

Super Thin Models

No, this isn’t' about politics - exactly. I just watched an interview on The View. They interviewed a "plus size" model. That is somehow who models clothes above size 10-12. But, according to most statistics, more than 60% of American women where a size greater than 10-12.

I'm not here to say it's OK to be overweight; by whatever criteria you want to use. What I find interesting and sad is the notion that to be a really famous model you have to literally be emaciated. That got me to thinking, why is it happening?

I think that this trend started with Twiggy back in the 1960's. I don't think it is a coincidence that the first generation she affected was also the first generation born after WWII. In fact, Twiggy is of that generation, as I am. We don' have a personal memory of seeing the emaciated survivors of Hitler’s concentration camps. The generations before us see very thin people and immediately relate it to the horrors of WWII. To them this is no look to emulate; it's just the opposite.

And, as we move further away from WWII, it becomes less real, just an historical event. It loses its power over us. That's too bad. I guess it does show how even the most horrific events fade in our memories and into the past; losing their power to effect us.

The President Broke the Law

No, that's not a surprise to most thinking people. The only question has been which law will he finally be held accountable for breaking?

The following code applies to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

The following is from the US criminal code:

§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
Itis a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed

Do we think Bush might actually be held responsible for breaking this law? It's a much bigger deal than lying under oath about an extra-marital affair isn’t it? Didn't we impeach a president for that? Are there any honorable Republicans left in Washington? We're about to find out.

What Harry Reid Said

This is a statement from Harry Reid today:

“The President asserted in his December 17th radio address that “leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it.” This statement gives the American public a very misleading impression that the President fully consulted with Congress.

“First, it is quite likely that 96 Senators of 100 Senators, including 13 of 15 on the Senate Intelligence Committee first learned about this program in the New York Times, not from any Administration briefing.

“I personally received a single very short briefing on this program earlier this year prior to its public disclosure. That briefing occurred more than three years after the President said this program began.

“The Administration briefers did not seek my advice or consent about the program, and based on what I have heard publicly since, key details about the program apparently were not provided to me.

“Under current Administration briefing guidelines, members of Congress are informed after decisions are made, have virtually no ability to either approve or reject a program, and are prohibited from discussing these types of programs with nearly all of their fellow members and all of their staff.

“We need to investigate this program and the President’s legal authority to carry it out. We also need to review this flawed congressional consultation system. I will be asking the President to cooperate in both reviews.”

Will there be an investigation? One is certainly called for. But, as many have pointed out, the American public does not seem to care very much that their privacy rights have been trampled by this administration. Can the Democrats force this issue without the vocal public outcry and support? Time will tell.

We've known for a while that Bush is breaking the law.

The following is the text of a letter written to Vice President Cheney by Senator Rockefeller back in 2003:

July 17, 2003
Dear Mr. Vice President,

I am writing to reiterate my concern regarding the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today with the DCI, DIRNSA, and Chairman Roberts and our House Intelligence Committee counterparts.

Clearly the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues. As you know, I am neither a technician or an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveiliance.

Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or techical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received.

I am retaining a copy of this letter in a sealed envelope in the secure spaces of the Senate Intelligence Committee to ensure that I have a record of this communication.

I appreciate your consideration of my views.

Most respectfully,

Jay Rockefeller

Here's a linkto the hand written note.

If this is correct, and it appears to be, it's way past time for the Democrats to stand up en masse and demand that Bush and Cheney either resign or be impeached. Personally, I like the idea of impeachment a whole lot better. I see Senator Lindsay Graham leading the prosecution - oh darn he's not in the house anymore. Can we find enough honorable Republicans left in the House of Representatives willing to do the right thing?

A Rock and a Hard Spot

So, Bush says he'll continue eavesdropping on Americans.

And Democrats have responded.

Such as this from Senator Levin, "Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight? That's not a check on the executive branch, notifying some members of Congress -- if he did -- that he's taken the law into his own hands."

And Senator Feingold's response, "The president does not have a leg to stand on legally with regard to this program. I think it's one of the weakest legal arguments I've heard that this [Afghanistan] war resolution somehow undid the basic laws of wiretapping in the United States."

Are we heading toward the momentous occasion? The one where a large number of Democrats stand up together and demand that President Bush be impeached? Will this ever happen? How many times does Bush get to go above/break the law before he is held accountable? Will it only happen that glorious day when he stands in front of St. Peter and has to explain his actions while President?

I won't be there for that particular event, so I want some action now. After all, hope springs eternal doesn't it?

Presidents and Wars

I don't suppose its news that Presidents try to expand powers during wartime. It happened during the Civil War and during WW II. The problem here gets back to the issue of the war itself.

I think most people would readily agree that those wars were both just and unavoidable. While I might not agree with Lincoln's and Roosevelt's attempts to expand the government’s powers against their own citizens, I can at least accept that these events happened in the context of just wars.

The Iraq war is neither just nor unavoidable. In fact it's just the opposite. And, there are specific laws on the books today (created in 1978) that were not available to Lincoln or Roosevelt to allow the government to obtain legal authority to spy on Americans. And yet Bush chose not to use the powers already available to him.

What are we to make of this? I think the only logical conclusion has to be this - President Bush believes he is personally (not the presidency) is above all laws in this country. How else do you explain willfully ignoring laws to gain an objective and instead going well beyond the law to gain the very same objective?

I believe Bush has cast himself as the Messianic figure needed to lead not just this country, but the world toward Christian religious states. If that sounds scary or hyperbolic or just plain silly OK. That's the way it looks to me. I don't doubt that those around him are only too happy to play up this vision Bush has of himself. It furthers their own goals of having power and in some cases trying to remake the world.

This president isn't Lincoln and he isn't Roosevelt. I've tried to find some similarities. Maybe the Eisenhower and his Eisenhouwer Doctrine that referenced the Middle East has somehow been perverted by Bush, and used in his quest (conquest) to bring democracy and Christianity to the region.

Like I said there are Presidents and Wars, but they're not all created equal.

Bush's Speech and Coincidences

It's late, and I know I wasn't impressed with President Bush's speech. It felt like more of the same to me. One entertaining little tidbit though is the coincidental visit by Cheney to Iraq.

Does anyone think his going there the very same day Bush gives his prime time speech is a coincidence? My only real question is this - when will the 35% of the population who seem to be brain dead Bush supporters wake up? It's almost like Bush and his crowd feels the need to out due themselves with ridiculous lies these days.

Is it just me?

Government Spying on Americans

I'm not really all that surprised. Not with Bush or the NY Times. As someone has put it so well, we are very close to becoming a government of people and not of laws. And that is just one step (maybe we are already there) from a dictatorship. I'm really beginning to fear for the future of our democracy. I'm probably late to the party in some people’s eyes.

Jack Cafferty on CNN today during Wolf Blitzer's show pretty much defined how I am feeling these days. To Bush laws mean absolutely nothing. The man was angry and disgusted. I know he hosts a show on the weekend - In the Money - it's a business show. I wouldn't call him a liberal by any means. Watching today it's clear his vomit meter was running pretty high.

TAPPED - if only Memo

Now, that's a memo that would actually give me hope that journalistic organizations in this country are intent on doing their job.

Here's a snippet from the post:

"Gentlemen, it is with grave concern that we point your attention to the report released yesterday by the CRS, which concluded that, contrary to numerous public statements by White House officials, the White House does in fact have access to far more intelligence than Congress."

"Thus, we feel we have no choice but to act jointly. Until you can pledge to us that White House officials will refrain from repeating these untruthful assertions in interviews on our programs or in speeches you ask us to air live, we regret that we can no longer extend invitations to White House officials to appear on our shows, and we will show far greater discretion in deciding whether to air presidential and vice-presidential addresses in the future."

If only....

A Compromise on the Patriot Act?

Well, it looks like the Democratic lead Senate plan to extend the Patriot Act for 3 months is going bye bye. Thank God for the Senate. Even under Republican control albeit with a really lousy leader, the fundamentalist right wing can't just ram any old thing they want through the chamber.

That said there are parts of the Patriot Act that are good and should be continued. It's a matter of will. Will the legislators actually use their brains to discern the parts that are helpful in fighting terrorism? I certainly hope so.

The Bush Administration so far has done a piss poor job from day one. Bush always likes to bring up 9/11 as a defining moment for the US. It was a defining moment for his administration too. It showed the American citizens that Bush and his crowd didn’t' care about fighting real international terrorism, and to this day they don't really care. Do they?

But, back to the Patriot Act. Let' hope there is a compromise that keeps the measures that are helpful and loses those that akin to a peeping Tom.

There's Cigarettes, and then there's Light Cigarettes

"CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -- The Illinois Supreme Court handed the tobacco industry a huge victory Thursday by tossing out a $10.1 billion fraud judgment against Philip Morris USA over the marketing of its ''light'' cigarettes." New York Times

Apparently the FTC had authorized such characterizations. So, technically Phillip Morris didn't break the law. Now, we know from studies that smokers of light cigarette inhale deeper and smoke more cigarettes so they end up getting about the same nicotine into their systems as those who smoke the real thing. But, that's not what the case was about.

Can we sue the FTC for allowing this advertising in the first place?

What the story on Romney?

He's a one term governor from a northeast state. Never mind that he's a Republican. Does he actually think 4 years running Mass. is going to get him into the White House? And, though it shouldn't count that he's a Mormon, I tend to think it will.

I hope he lines up a new day job soon.

Taxing insanity

Let me get this straight. The Republican controlled House of Representatives has voted to cut $50 billion in spending "over five years from a range of social programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, and federal student loans".

At the same time they voted to cut taxes $95 billion over the same 5 years. Over a third of this is a capital gains cut and "Because wealthy taxpayers tend to earn more through investments, the tax package would disproportionately benefit them. About 40 percent of the total tax relief would go to those with annual incomes of $1 million or more". That works out to about $38 billion of the tax cut. This is basically making money off of money you already have.

So, $38 billion of the money was going to go to social programs will instead go into the pockets of people who are ALREADY millionaires. And who said Republicans only care about the rich?

This is so disgusting, really. Have they no sense of decency?

Clooney (yes, the actor) speaks, but not for me

George Clooney: "I hate it when smart men and women are saying, ‘Well, if I knew then what I know now.' The fact is: I knew it then and I don’t have national security clearance. . . Basically, the Democrat leadership was scared [of criticizing Bush] and it’s too bad, because it’s come back to haunt them."

I do think it's necessary to flesh out that thought. Did he know Bush wouldn't follow the congressional resolution he pushed through? Did he know Bush would cherry-pick evidence when citing reasons to invade Iraq? Did he know that Bush would have NO plan for Iraq after we threw Hussein out of power?

Looking back, I have to say that I bought the Colin Powell presentation to the UN. I thought that man had too much integrity to sit there and lie to the whole world.

I can honestly say "if I knew then what I know now" about the war I would have pushed my congressman and Senators to vote NO.

Should I have known better? Absolutely - I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 (or 2004). I think he's an idiot. But, I wanted to believe our government wasn't so inept, so thoughtless about human life, so careless with these countries citizens, its money, and our good standing in the world. I was foolish and I was fooled.

Can We Ban Torture?

It looks like Congress is on board the McCain Torture Ban train. And it's about time. If reports are correct, the president is about to cave on the issue. That's not so surprising. I never thought for a minute that Bush's first veto would be of a bill that said the US doesn’t' torture people.

It's in the eyes

The idea that there are in fact similarities between the Nixon and Bush presidency isn’t new. In fact there are more than a few posts out there in the blog world talking about this subject.

Let’s focus for a minute at the facial features:





Note the close set eyes, the half pouting lips. You can even see they both have US Flag pins on their lapels. Need I say more?

Robert Novak - speaker of the truth?

I see that today Robert Novak did a little more talking about Plamegate. In a nut shell, he is convinced that Bush knows who the White House leaker is.

Now, isn't that grounds for impeachment? Did he not swear to uphold the law and defend this country? Certainly not coming forward with this information falls into one of those categories doesn’t' it?

And, now Bush has decided to accept responsibility for going to war on faulty intelligence. Isn't this just another way of actually avoiding responsibility? Bush has done nothing more than blame the CIA, etc. Not one word about the cherry picking of intelligence. Nothing about Cheney pressuring CIA employees. Nothing about Bolton pushing all the wrong buttons. Nothing about knowing that at least some of the claims he made were false.

Robert Novak may occasionally speak the truth, but I don't see Bush ever doing the same, unless it somehow helps him.

"I fully understand" that "I am not a crook"

Those old enough to remember (or maybe learned it in school) will recognize both statements. Our current president loves to use the phrase "I fully understand/recognize" blah blah blah. When that phrase slips out of his mouth I know I'm about to hear either a talking point or an untruth, and most of the time it's both.

Our former president - Nixon - famously told some 400 AP managing editors that "I am not a crook". Of course we know how accurate those words turned out to be.

My point? I see interesting and scary parallels between the two presidents. Both ended up with a bunker mentality. Some would argue that has always been Bush's state of being, but regardless, they both found themselves in that situation. Of course, Nixon went on to resign in the face of certain impeachment, and we can't hope for a repeat with Bush, though if there was ever a president who should be impeached and thrown out of office it's Bush.

It will be interesting to look for other signs of similarities. A really nice one would be the resignation in disgrace by the VP. Cheney is no Agnew though. In fact he's a lot worse. Let's hope Fitzgerald or someone gets the goods on him.

Our Secret Detainee Camps

It appears our government spirited away its prisoners fromcamps in Poland and Romania when word got out that they existed.

Now, the leaders of those two countries are left denying that we were ever there. I guess that how allies treat other allies.

The Comeback Kid?

No, I'm not talking about Bill Clinton as president, but I sure wish I was. I'm actually talking about our current president.

A couple of polls have him up a bit, and sadly the MSM have taken it upon themselves to starting throwing around the phrase "comeback". I knew this would happen. A new poll out today from Zogby today suggests that the media is premature. Let's see if they manage to report on the Zogby poll. After all, it will get in the way of the current "story".

Time to get the word out through the internet and blogs, and force the news corps to actually report on facts, even if they ruin a perfectly good "comeback kid" story.

DeLay on the Spit

Is he done yet? Can we stick a fork in him? Maybe it's just me, but I have this visceral dislike (maybe it's even hated) for the man. I can't think of a single positive thing to say about him. Is it because he was an exterminator in his other life? Oh wait, he is still one - it's humans he goes after now.

Reading the news these days does give me hope that the days of Tom DeLay are numbered. I'm not sure what the Supreme Court can do exactly about DeLay's illegal re-districting of Texas. I don't see how you undo those consequences now. But, just the have it undone in some manner would be good.

I also see that the prosecutor is subpoenaing bank records, etc. in the money laundering case against DeLay. Let's hope they find something.

As for my "hatred" of DeLay, I know it's not nice, it's not Christian, but it FEELS so right....

A New FAKE Journalist

I see that the Washinton Times has a new "journalist". Conservative lobbyist Chris Horne has morphed into journalist Chris Horne.

What so interesting (surprising? disgusting?) part of this is the fact that this is a well known guy. And, from what I read, not a very nice one either. Hats off to Think Progress for staying on top of the right wing games used to manipulate news coverage of Bush.

The Iraqi's and American's agree one Thing

A majority of citizens in both countries want the US military out of Iraq. So, what's the hang up? To me it doesn't even matter what reasons are given. A case can and has already been made by Rep. Murtha that our military was assigned the task of getting rid of WMD's and Hussein. Being as there were no WMD's and Hussein has been deposed, our military succeeded in their assigned task - brilliantly I think.

Our failures come from the fact the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/PNAC have attempted to assign the military a non-military task. Somehow our soldiers are now "soldiers for democracy and the American Way" Asking the military to perform tasks they are not intended nor trained for has set up an impossible situation. It's been so long since their military victory that we tend to forget what a good job they did in their assigned task.

Bush’s big mistake (in Iraq) was not pulling the troops out the day he stood on that air craft carrier with his "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" sign behind him. But, that time has come and gone now - our standing in the world is damaged badly, and our military is stuck in Iraq.

Let' get behind the politicians calling for a rapid phased withdrawal and get out of Iraq now.

The Death Penalty

Living here in California, the death penalty has once again taken over the news. This time it's in the guise of Stanley "Tookie" Williams. And, as usual, it's not actually about the individual, it's about the death penalty itself.

Let's assume "Tookie" Williams has done lots to redeem himself, writing books, working against gangs. The thing is, that has nothing to do with the fact that he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death back in 1981. Being a "different person" today is irrelevant to the issue. And to my mind, if he has really become a more redeemed person, he himself should step forward and accept responsibility to his actions 26 years ago. Isn't that what "responsible" people do?

But, back to the death penalty. It's an ongoing issue in the state, and I have more than a passing interest. There is a man who has been sitting in San Quentin on death row since 1982 for the murder of my Aunt Vi. Personally I want him dead.

The death penalty is a farce in this state. I don't care who these murderers become in the intervening decades after their convictions. If the death penalty is to mean anything it has to come a lot quicker than after literally decades of appeals.

Rove's Memory

Looking at the emerging details from the new Fitzgerald grand jury inquiry, it feels like the noose is beginning to tighten again around Rove's neck. The way I am reading this, Rove's lawyer, Mr. Luskin apparently talked to Fitzgerald for the express purpose of loosening that noose.

Fitzgerald appears to be looking at the possibility that he was sold a bill of goods. Hence, the subpoena of Luskin before the grand jury. Novak (the other one) has called into question the truthfulness of Luskin's statements. That leaves us with a couple of possibilities.

Luskin himself might be caught in a lie; maybe not perjury, but I think a sworn officer of the court is held to a higher standard and he could be charged with something. Rove's behind the scenes efforts to save himself, i.e. throw his lawyer to the wolves doesn't appear to be working. That could place him back in jeopardy of an indictment for perjury.

As to the original source of this investigation, the Plame leak, who knows where that stands. The Bush administration may have told just enough lies to avoid a direct indictment there. And that's a real shame.

"My words to Howard Dean are simple - shut up."

These words come from North Dakota Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy. I guess he's not happy with Dean's words. He's probably not alone on that count. And, he's probably not happy with the many discordant Democratic voices speaking lately on the issue of Iraq.

The Republican's little web ad was pretty silly, but we gave them the ammunition. These wounds are self-inflicted. At some point, someone has to stand up and take the reins of the Democratic Party. I don't have a favorite actually, though I tend to like what Harry Reid says most.

What do most Democrats think?

Some deaths just hurt more than others

"I will give you an interesting statistic. The number of people who have been killed in action in Iraq is 1,664. It's a lot. The number of people who have died over there are another 446."

That comment was made by Donald Rumsfeld on PBS's The News Hour on Wednesday.

Interesting statistics? So, ONLY 1664 were killed in combat. Those other 446 dead soldiers don't really count - they would have died anyway. There mere fact that he is reduced to quantifying the value of those killed in Iraq is nauseating.

But, it tells the families of those 446 that their family member's death doesn't actually count in our "war on terror". How much more insulting can the Bush administration get? Is there nothing it won't do, won't say to try and save itself from taking one iota of responsibility for this mess?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - my governor

It's hard to know who going to show up for work each day. Is it the Arnold who is pro-choice, and supports environmental legislation? Or the Arnold who picks foolish fights with nurses and teachers? Does he lean left today, or turn right today?

I see he picked a former Davis staffer for his chief of staff. And, it ticked off the Republicans pretty badly. One conservative group is calling to withhold their endorsement of Arnold in the 2006 governor’s race.

Is it possible another Republican might run against him in the primary? Right now I would give the possibility long odds, but I hope someone does. That would pretty much guarantee a Democratic governor next year. Because, the only person who could beat Arnold in a primary would be pro-life, and that is a loser in this state.

So, my Christmas wish is for a challenger to beat out Arnold for the 2006 Republican nomination as governor.

Fretting over Polls

I love the polls that have Bush losing popularity - and I hate the ones that show him getting it back. So, the recent New York Times/CBS poll was not one to love. But, I follow Rasmussen Polls daily too. In my opinion, they lean pretty consistent right. Their polling on Bush has him dropping again after a short tick upward.
These are Bush's numbers as of today:

Updated Daily by Noon Eastern RR Bush Job Approval Approve Disapprove Today 43 55 Dec 8 44 54 Dec 7 45 53 Dec 6 46 52 Dec 5 48 52 Dec 4 47 52 Dec 3 46 53 Dec 2 46 54 Dec 1 44 56 Nov 30 46 53 Nov 29 45 54 Dates are release dates. Surveys conducted on preceding three nights. Earlier Results for RR Premium Members RasmussenReports.com

Rasmussen Reports

It's a good poll to watch, if only to see what a right leaning poll says about Bush. When he is down in this poll, I am confident that he is really down.

Is Dean on the way Out?

I know, the mere thought is sacrilege to many. Especially the Net Roots. But, is he doing the job we hired him to do? That is an important question. If he is a major spokesperson for the party, than he's not doing his job. The Democrats are speaking with too many voices. In other words too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

If he is a leader working to raise money? On that count he seems to be doing a pretty decent job. At least compared to past years. We never raise money the way the Republican's do, so that is a false comparison.

Is he a leader working to expand the party into all 50 states? On that count he seems to be having success.

But, back to being "the face of the party" - I think he does as much damage as he does good. That' my opinion.

Is Howard Dean good for the Democratic Party?

Cable News

I watch CNN's World News Hour pretty regularly, and I think it gives a balanced view of the news. Particularly when talking about US news it strives to discuss and report both the administration's as well as the European/world views on issues.

Today Bush spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations and made what seems to be a very poor attempt to somehow compare Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor and Saddam Hussein. It did not appear to go over very well. Of course it wouldn't and shouldn’t because the two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. This silly comparison must have been thrown into the speech by Bush's new PR professor.

If the American people think we're fighting WW2 all over again maybe they will get behind the President, support him, and ignore all the bad news and deaths of US soldiers and Iraqi citizens. That's a big if - mostly because the Iraq war looks so much more like Vietnam than WW2

Bush's "major speech on Iraq" and Iraq plans

Bush spoke about Iraq again...in another major speech. He's trying to get control of the issue back. The problem is he can't quite bring himself to speak the truth. He quoted Lt. Col Todd Wood several times while talking about the Iraqi army. He didn't use whole quotes however. John Carlson of the Desmoines Register did the actual interview and any quotes that were not 100% favorable to the administration were conveniently left out.

For example, Wood is quoted, "They're pretty much ready to go it on their own" by Bush, but the rest of the quote is, "But until they are properly equipped, they'll need our help." That changes the whole tenor of the quote.

And, of course we have the news that the 35 page National Strategy for Victory in Iraq was written mostly by a professor who studies opinion polls. It's one big piece of propaganda. What a surprise.

Just when you think he can't possibly sink any lower as a human being (and I'm being pretty generous right now including him in Homo sapiens) he proves there actually is NO depths to which he won't sink.

It's time to say Good Bye Republican control of this country.

It looks like Tom DeLay will be going to trial next year. That's a good thing. Even better, he may lose in the 2006 election.

That's a lot of ifs, but things finally seem to be falling into place to get rid of the Bug Man. He is just the first of many I hope. Frist is already gone - a lame duck who couldn't ever run the Senate.

The swirling scandals of Abramoff look to be coming to a boil - who says a watched pot never boils? It's about time too. I think there' going to be lots of congressmen caught up in this little mess.

Then we have the Fitzgerald investigation. There's another pot that simmering at the moment, but seems about ready to boil over again.

What to do about rabid homophobic hate groups

I see that "American Family Association" and "Focus on the Family" are going after large companies that support equal rights for gays and lesbians. This is a full frontal attack on equal rights for gays. They use phrases such as:

Ford Motor Company Supports Homosexual Marriage Movement
You are probably unaware that Ford Motor Company is a major supporter of the homosexual movement, including homosexual marriage.

from AmericaBlog

And, things like this

“Focus on the Family has elected to end its banking relationship with Wells Fargo, motivated primarily by the bank’s ongoing efforts to advance the radical homosexual agenda. These efforts are in direct opposition to the underlying principles and purpose of Focus, and thus a decision of conscience had to be made, and a stand taken.

from the awful Focus on the Family

These groups have the least Godly behavior I have ever seen. They must be exposed for the haters they truly are. More than that, this behavior is becoming the excepted norm for the religious right, and the Democratic Party has to stand up as one and loudly proclaim, "Of course we support equal rights for gays and lesbians, just as we support equal rights for women and minorities of all kinds." Its way past time that the Democrats stood for something more than trying to protect themselves. They end up being not much better than the overt haters if they don't defend equal rights for ALL Americans.

Democrats and the Iraq War

My God - I see the Democratic answer to Iraq is still all over the place. And, I think I sort of agreed that it was OK for the Dems to be there. Well, I've thought some more....that's the beauty of the blog....and I think I'm wrong.

It seems American's listen to the loudest coordinated voice, and it doesn't really seem to matter if it's correct or not. Because of this, the Democrats have to get on the same page to at least get the ear of the American public. I want the public to be more discerning and thoughtful, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Sadly, Bush is staying on topic - he's so wrong - but it doesn't matter. It's what's registering with the public, and I will predict with confidence that 1) his poll numbers will go up and 2) the MSM will re-do the "Bush is failing story" into the "Bush is on the comeback story". That will be one really nauseating event to say the least.

I'd force Democrats on to a single track on the Iraq if I could - but no one seems to be really stepping up to the plate on this issue. And anyone who tries is pretty much guaranteed to get booed by some faction of the party.

Can anyone say "The Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate in 2006." I think that's where we're headed. Damn

The Hussein Trial

It's sort of like watching a train wreck. You want to turn away in horror, but you can’t' take your eyes off the event. More seriously though, does the former dictator have a point? Is a special court set up in a country that at this point doesn't even have an official government a real court? Can it try this man?

And, if not, then what? I think he should have had a trial before an international war crimes tribunal. It makes a lot of sense doesn't it? These crimes are so horrible, they rise above nation states. That's where the Milosevic trial took place. Why do you think Bush pushed to have the trial in Iraq? Is it just his need to be in control of absolutely everything? That's my guess.

My other thought is that he doesn't think any international body has any real standing in relation to anything the US does. We're simply above it all - doing God's work and such. That's the scary part for me.

Bill Press, Karel, and me

I listened to KGO this evening. The host Karel, one very politically incorrect gay man interviewed Bill Press about his new book. What a good hour that was. Liberal talk at its best. Bill has a new book out. It titled "How The Republicans Stole Christmas".

The gist of the conversation revolved around the hypocritical conservative movement and the charlatans loudly claiming to bring forth the word of God. In a word, they both agreed as do I, the Falwells of this world spew forth nothing but crap.

To my delight, they even managed to discuss the "pragmatic" need for liberals to engage the country on the issue of religion. I happen to agree! But more than that, I happen to think its way more than pragmatic, it's the honest thing to do. Some 80% of all American's claim to be Christians - that would include the 80% of Democrats. Of course we will talk about our faith. It's as central to our lives as it is to anyone else. The horrible conservative lie that the Democratic Party is a godless party has to STOP.

Anyway, I'm climbing off my soapbox for a while now...I'm right though...even I who do not practice the Christian religion regularly know that Jesus simply would not recognize what the Christian fundamentalist right has done to Christianity. Anyone whose religion is important to them must engage in this conversation.

Did you know, we're the World Leader on Human Rights

I know, you're picking yourself up off the floor right now. Bush, he of the alternate universe, has proclaimed it so. Here's the story. You're thinking but what about abu gharib, or maybe the secret CIA prisons, or maybe even New Orleans.

I like to think I'm a rational being, and I think you are too. How is it that this administration continues to live on Fantasy Island? Will there ever be any call to finally hold them responsible? This has to come from the Republican's too. Even they must be viewing this with a rising sense of concern. One could only hope their collective vomit meters reach critical mass soon.

What's the Pragmatic way out of Iraq?

Now, there's a loaded question for you.

Let's make the following assumption:

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that a U.S. withdrawal before Iraq’s armed forces and police are ready to secure the country will result in terrorist-friendly anarchy and hurt American interests.

So, the question is, how do we move forward. It seems to me that the only real way to secure the country and prevent a terrorist-friendly anarchy – if it’s possible at all – is to put another 250,000 troops in the country and REALLY take control. They already think we’re occupiers – bad ones apparently – let’s do the job right. Squash the “rejectionists” – now there’s a ridiculous word – and give those who at least want some form of democratically governed country a chance. This should have happened 2 years and 9 months ago, but Rumsfeld/Cheney et al had their heads up their asses with PNAC mumbo-jumbo swirling in their tiny little minds.

Yes, I know we were lied to going in. Yes, the entire Bush administration is comprised of idiots - each and every one of them - and by the way wouldn’t the law of averages suggest at least a few would have a functional brain?

But, and it's really sad to be where we are, we're there now. Let's adjust the Murtha plan just a little. Bring in overwhelming force for 12 months - squash the rebels, whoever they are - get the election done properly, and phase ourselves out by June 2007. We can do that can't we? After all the rule is "you break it, you bought it". The mess on the floor is ours. Let's clean it up like grownups.

Now THIS is Politically Incorrect

You're An Extreme Redneck If...

* You let your 14-year-old daughter smoke at the dinner table in front of her kids.
* The Blue Book value of your truck goes up and down depending on how much gas is in it.
* You've been married three times and still have the same in-laws.
* You think a woman who is "out of your league" bowls on a different night.
* You wonder how service stations keep their restrooms so clean.
* You think Dom Perignon is a Mafia leader.
* Your wife's hairdo was once ruined by a ceiling fan.
* Your junior prom offered day care.
* You think the last words of the "Star-Spangled Banner" are "Gentlemen, start your
engines."
* You lit a match in the bathroom and your house exploded right off its wheels.
* The Halloween pumpkin on your porch has more teeth than your spouse.
* You have to go outside to get something from the fridge.
* You need one more hole punched in your card to get a freebie at the House of
Tattoos.
* You can't get married to your sweetheart because there's a law against it.
* You think loading the dishwasher means getting your wife drunk.

No one has ever accused me of being politically correct (at least not the sober ones), so laugh, gag, recoil in disgust, but it least in my opinion they're funny, even if not all true!

Tom DeLay - apparetly no horrible thing about him is False

The Washington Post has a story up today that essentially says the US Justice Department stated DeLay's "redistricting plan" violated the Voting Rights Act, but he went ahead and did it anyway.

Now, can we censure this man and throw him out of office? Or does he need to drown a baby (Democratic of course) or two?

I'm pragmatic as hell on some things, but this guy belongs behind bars. My contempt for him has no bounds. Here's the link to the article. Hold your nose and have the vomit bag ready. It's going to be a bumpy ride
.

Will you be seeing KING KONG?

OK, so it's not about politics. I saw the preview of KONG last week - yes when I saw Harry Potter, which by the way was really fun - and the preview looks good. I didn't like either the original (I know, it's a classic, it's still chessy) or the remake with Jessica Lange (just stupid). This new one seems more entertaining, unless of course they put all of the good scenes in the trailer.

Anyway, politics is politics, and a lot of it really sucks right now, but there's always the movies for a little vacation from reality.

Is Barbara Bush getting ready to help sonny boy clean house?

Per The Washington Note, Babs is none too happy with Cheney, Rove, or Card and may be trying to find a way to get rid of them. Cheney is the hardest nut to crack, but surely the Bush's have something on him. They could force a "health related" retirement. The other two serve at the pleasure of the President so their jobs can be gone in a minute.

The question is, is this a good thing? My Liberal leanings tell me YES. Let Bush go down in flames with his cabal. But, my pragmatic side says NO, after all Bush is in office for another three years and I want the country to survive his presidency.

What are your thoughts?

Can the Democrats find their way on Iraq?

The War Room has an interesting post about Democrats and the Iraq War. They do make a point - the Democrats do seem to be all over the page on the issue of Iraq (that assumes we still claim Lieberman as a Democrat).

The point is, until recently the Republicans have moved in lockstep on the issue - backing everything Bush as done with regard to Iraq. And look where it's gotten them.

Do Democrats need to find some "big theme" everyone can follow on Iraq? I don't think it's possible, and I don't think it's necessary. The mess over there - and here - is SO BIG no one answer would seem to suffice.

The Pragmatic route (I like the sound of that) allows Democrats to acknowledge their YES votes - with the caveat that they did NOT have all the information Bush had; with the caveat that the resolution they voted for was in fact NOT what Bush ended up doing; with the caveat that of course they would NOT have voted for the resolution if they had known 1) what Bush knew and 2) that Bush would not even attempt to follow the resolution he himself pushed for.

Let's take this argument and move it back where it belongs. This is BUSH'S WAR, not the Democrats. Democrats can talk about more responsible ways to conduct it, but it's NOT their war, they aren't responsible for it, Bush is. That is the beginning, the middle, and the end of the story.

Unrelenting AIDS - and other DEATHS

Today is World AIDS Day - if only such a day could do more. Some 3 million people died from AIDS this year. As a comparison, in 2003 WHO stats show that 16.7 million people died from cardiovascular diseases. And, 7.1 million people died from cancer.

Aids is ranking up there among the top three - and it is a 100% preventable disease. Education is the key. Along with removing the ridiculous religious overtones attached to the illness.

Today is a sad day, very sad, but there is ONE statistic that's even worse, and more shocking. Every year - every year - 15 million children die from starvation on this planet. World Hunger. This is a tragedy on so many levels it's hard to even count them. Let's spend some time talking about this "killing of children".

Picking out a College - some Pragmatic Stuff

Picking a college for yourself or your kids these days is light years from how decisions were made in the past. Back in the "olden days" - my generation - it had a lot to do with location. You went to the college close to home.

Today, choices are wider, and the internet is an invaluable tool. There are several excellent sources out there, and I'll list just a few.

Ed-Data This site focuses on California
EdSource
GreatSchools.net
Just for the Kids Another mostly California site.

It's never too soon to think about college. You can set up Educational Savings Accounts if your kids are fairly young. Here's some information Tax Benefits for Education Savings Accounts - ESA

For those thinking about college either for themselves or their children (or grandchildren) it's an exiting time, but one that must be carefully researched.
Good Luck to all of you.

Did Bush say ANYTHING?

I just read Bush’s speech today. So, “The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists.” Is this news?

About this, “In the days ahead, I'll be discussing the various pillars of our strategy in Iraq. Today, I want to speak in depth about one aspect of this strategy that will be critical to victory in Iraq — and that's the training of Iraqi security forces. To defeat the terrorists and marginalize the Saddamists and rejectionists, Iraqis need strong military and police forces. Iraqi troops bring knowledge and capabilities to the fight that coalition forces cannot.”Is this news?

I have actually read much of the document. Here’s a part from page 11:

Success in the short, medium, and long run will depend on progress in overcoming these
challenges and on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Our strategy – along the political,
security, and economic tracks – is establishing the conditions for victory. These conditions
include:
• Progress in the Iraqi political process and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to forge
political compromises;
• Consolidation of gains in the training of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF);
• Commitment to and implementation of economic reforms by Iraqi leaders;
• Increased cooperation of Iraq’s neighbors;
• Expanded support from the international community;
• Continued support of the American people.
􀂾 Success in the short, medium, and long run will depend on progress in overcoming these
challenges and on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Our strategy – along the political,
security, and economic tracks – is establishing the conditions for victory. These conditions
include:
• Progress in the Iraqi political process and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to forge
political compromises;
• Consolidation of gains in the training of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF);
• Commitment to and implementation of economic reforms by Iraqi leaders;
• Increased cooperation of Iraq’s neighbors;
• Expanded support from the international community;
• Continued support of the American people.


Did the Senate just two weeks ago pass a resolution asking for specific progress reports? Is there anything in this document that talks about providing that? And why not?

I see Bush has attached Iraq to 9/11 again. Can’t he defend it on its merits? (Page 13)

The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we
abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to
men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our nation’s security, this will not happen on my watch.”
– President George W. Bush, June 28, 2005

And what about this statement (page 2):

“The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new
government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one
brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new
government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.
Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including
our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.”
- President George W. Bush, February 26, 2003

Do you see any evidence that the Iraqi people trust either Bush or the US? The polls I read say NO.

In Support of Andrew Sullivan

I am always amazed when people find ways to define every position a person holds in relation to one aspect of that person's life. Take Andrew Sullivan for example Andrew Sullivan

I don't agree with a lot of what he says (but more than I thought I would), but it is patently obvious that Andrew's being gay does NOT drive every position he holds on every issue. It is illogical on the face of it. Does your being straight drive every position you hold on every issue? Or does being an African American drive every position one holds on every issue?

The point here is those who would make that claim about Sullivan are practicing a subtle form of homophobia. THEY can't get past his being gay, so they project their own prejudices on him in other more "socially acceptable" ways.

It's disgusting.

Ruben Navarrette: Demo tactics on war wrong - is he right?

Mr. Navarrette makes a few points about Democrats and the Iraq war:
Demo Tactics Wrong

"Democrats, especially those with presidential ambitions, think they're being so clever. They have devised a line of argument they believe will help them benefit politically from President Bush's troubles in Iraq.

But it turns out they aren't so clever. What they've come up with stands a good chance of backfiring and doing Democratic candidates more harm than good. Even though Iraq seems to be a huge liability for the president and the Republicans, it's possible that the war will eventually hurt the Democrats as much as anyone."

"If a debate comes, it'll be no thanks to Democrats. The best they could dream up goes something like this: "We were hustled. Sure, we voted to authorize President Bush to use military force to invade Iraq, but we were misled. Not that we regret toppling Saddam Hussein. We only regret that we weren't given all the necessary information to make a more informed decision."

The "we were hustled" approach offers something for everyone. If you support the war, you can applaud Democrats for backing the president. If you oppose the war, you sympathize with them for being conned by what you've probably already decided is a devious bunch.

But Democrats are forgetting one crucial detail: Americans hate politicians who duck responsibility for their actions by relying on parsed phrasing and other word games.

I agree with the notion that "we were hustled" can't possibly work if it's the only argument Democrats make. But, it is true, we were hustled. Democrats have to get out there and point out that Bush fed Congress a line, and it wasn't just Democrats that "were hustled", it was Republicans too. And that's a crime.

Bush is on the defensive now; Democrats need to keep him there. I mean really, just now - 2 years and 9 months after we invaded Iraq - Bush has come up with a plan? That's not just stupid, it's criminal.

The WH PR machine is in full swing

So, President Bush spoke in front of some soldiers again. Like that will provide any help for his sorry excuse for an actual exit strategy. And it's all printed up with a nice shinny blue cover.

There's no real accountability in this "document". Congress won't know any more about what the Bush administration is doing than before.

It's time to watch the MSM closely now and see if they take five minutes to dissect this shame of a plan and report on it.

UPDATE: I'm now watching the CNN International Hour and the reception to Bush's "plan" doesn't seem very positive. The WH reporter stated that there was nothing new in it. The one obvious thing missing is the Democratic response. Hopefully we'll see more of that when we get past the International news hour.

The Vatican doesn't want any MORE gay priests

How do you spell hypocrite? It's OK to keep the ones you have now - after all you want there to be some priests left - but no new ones. Now that would upset God.

You have to wonder about Pope Benedict - isn't he protesting just a little too much?

“National Strategy for Victory in Iraq"

Bush must really be scared. He's going to announce his "national strategy" for Iraq. Does this not simply cry out for the obvious question, "You mean you haven't had one for the past 2 years? Over 2000 soldiers have died, and you are just now coming up with a strategy?

Impeach this man now. If this isn't an impeachable offense, what is?

Harry Potter

I saw the newest Harry Potter yesterday. I admit it; I've seen them all, though I haven't read books. I think this is the best movie yet; it's got a more mature theme, it's a much better depiction of good vs. evil - or as I like to think - liberals vs. conservatives! The bad guy is really bad, and I actually think he looks a little like Bush - without the nose. He certainly has the bad attitude, and totally self-serving agenda. He even gave one of his minions his hand back (you had to see it). Now if we could just find Scott McClellan!

P.S. I've taken to coping my posts to Word and spellchecking them and bringing them back, hopefully spelled right. I can't vouch for the syntax, most of the time I'm convinced I'm rightt!

Redistricting

Out here in California we're talking about redistricting. Yes, the proposition went up in flames, and maybe it should have. But, the problem still exists. My state happens to gerrymander mostly toward Democratic control, while others go the conservative route.

The point is, neither one is correct. I'm all for reasonably contiguous boundaries in the districts and let the chips fall where they may. Right now, my district runs from the SF Bay area all the way east in a narrow strip to the Nevada border. The more conservative voters east of me outnumber the more liberal voters, so I never get the person I vote for as my representative. And worse yet, the people in my congressional district don't share much in common, making it a given that my representative represents only the more conservative crowd east of me.

That is not representative government. I want redistricting removed from the legislature and given to a panel of some sort. Or maybe we need nothing more than a computer program to lay the districts out so equal numbers of people in contiguous geographic areas are developed. I could live with that.

WANTED: Scott McClellan

It appears Scotty may have joined the witness protection program. Not much heard from him in over 2 weeks. What's up with that? Maybe he's stuck in that undisclosed place with Cheney. What a torture.

Congradulations to Talking Points Memo

We can thank Talking Points Memo for Randy Cunningham's plea to bribery and resignation from Congress. We talk a lot about the power of blogs - here's an outstanding example of how bloggers can find an issue, stay on it relentlessly and get results.

I might actually agree with Bush on something - oh the horror

President Bush is talking about illegal immigrants again. Oh, I mean undocumented workers...whatever. He is making some sense on the issue (obviously an idea not of his own making). We do have a problem with illegal immigrants, but not the one most people worry about.

The problem this country has with illegal immigrants has everything to do with needing workers for jobs most people don't want in this country. Farm workers, hotel workers, busboys, even construction workers. With employment down in the 5% range, there simply isn't a big enough pool of workers to pull from. And, I think there is a built in base of adults who simply don't want to or can't work.

I speak about this issue from a very personal perspective. My son is married to an illegal immigrant. She works in a bakery now, but started as a hotel maid. She is learning English to fit in better, as are her several bothers and mother. They are all here illegally, all working full time, all contributing to our economy.

The answer to the problem is obviously not simple. We need them, but we also need to know who they are, where they work etc. Maybe the guest worker idea is a good start, with an option to become a legal citizen after a certain number of years. I tend toward that opinion. But, whatever we do, it is an issue that needs solving, and building a wall or having the "citizen patrols" out there is not the answer.

It's way past time to have this discussion.

Duke "Top Gun" Cunninghan, aka convicted felon

Well, it appears the fat has risen to the top. Rep. Cunningham admits taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors. No surprise they got the war they wanted.

All the well supplying the government with over-priced under-valued goods. And, our soldiers suffered, maybe died so Mr. Top Gun could enrich himself. Now there's a patriot for you. I sure hope the right wing zealots set up to the plate and defend their man.

Patients dumped on Skid Row

That's the headline in my newspaper, The Sacramento Bee. Apparently several hospitals are discharging homeless patients to "Skid Row". I think that is just fine. My point - they come to the hospital homeless, why is it the job of the hospital to find them a home? As long as the hospitals don't discharge them to a worse place than they came from, why is that a problem?

I have been a nurse for 30 years now, I have seen it all - or at least most of all. As an example, yesterday at work a discharge planner was talking with a homeless man about discharge. She had found him a homeless shelter to go to. The mans response? Oh, they won't let him stay more than a night or two; can't we get him a hotel room for a week or two? And, that's exactly the response we usually get. A hotel room? Why?

Being the pragmatic liberal that I am - I would say "I didn't have a hand in your being in the life situation you are in now, but I can give you just a small hand up - i.e. the homeless shelter. But, it's not my job - it's your job - to make more permanent plans for your future". Is that hard hearted? Maybe a little, but my own experience (and talk to any nurses you know) is that this man is looking to us - society - to take care of all of his needs, and that is just not reasonable.

I can be liberal, but I don't feel the need to be mother, father, and nanny to every single person in this country.

What is a Pragmatic Liberal?

I like the name and it makes a lot of sense to me. But, what exactly is a "pragmatic liberal"? Is it someone who sells out on issues? Or is it someone who can sometimes find a middle ground that might not please a "diehard liberal"?

And, when I find that middle ground, will there be anyone there? I think I will find some moderates from both parties, depending upon the issue. Let's take one example - and it's a big one - the Iraq war. I wholeheartedly believe we were consciously lied to by Bush, we're there under false pretenses, and it's a mess. But, I also feel we have a responsibility to the people there now, and have to find a way out that isn’t' simply to walk away immediately. That brings me to Rep. Murtha - he has single handedly changed the debate, and thank God for him. We're talking about how to get out of Iraq now, including the Republicans. The key is to get a large enough middle ground crowd to control the debate.

So, for me this is one place where I can agree to disagree with those who would pull out today, but also disagree with those who want to "stay the course" - whatever that is. That's my definition of a pragmatic liberal approach. Does it make sense to anyone besides me?

Welcome Juan Cole visitors

I love Informed Consent myself. That's why I decided to try a blog ad there. My own little site is probably more eclectic, and certainly doesn't have the gravitas Juan brings to his site, but I try.

I hope to work on some fairly substantive posts associated with the notion that liberals can find common ground with a variety of people - particularly independents on specific issues.

Light Posting

I work weekends, every weekend actually. Two 12 hour shifts. Lucky for me, that basically consistutes full time. As a result however, posting on weekends is light to non-existant. Unless of course some calamity arises.
More on Monday.

Advanced Directives and my Mom

My mother is redoing her durable power of attornery for health care. This has been a two week ongoing procress. She wants to be sure it's correct, so we are going over it - again to be sure it's right.

This brings me to my topic - the need for all of us to have a durable power of attornery for healthcare. Any one of us could find ourselves in a sitution where we are not able to make our own wishes known. And, spending time with our collective heads in the sand is not a solution.

To that end I am linking to a Advance Healthcare Directive. Take a minute to look it over. Make a copy and fill it out. There is a nice peace of mind associated with taking care of at least one "what if".

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

So, I'm reading today's paper - The Sacramento Bee - and I'm all prepared to write about the good, bad, and ugly. Only, I can't find much good out there.

I suppose it's good that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has come clean, he actually wasn't a pro baseball draftee. But wait, that bad. It means he has been lying for four decades about this. And it's just plain ugly; why would anyone lie about something so easily fact checked.

Then there's the Ice Study. Apparently greenhouse gases are the highest they have been in 650,000 years. Now that's bad and ugly. But then again, it's good we know it now. Maybe this sort of really bad news will spur us into action to make changes for the better.

Finally, there is Romania which is denying that Mihail Kogalniceanu base has ever held U.S. al-Qaida captives. Now, that sounds a little like good news. But then again, it's pretty bad when we are talking in any capacity about secret detainee bases under U.S control isn't it? And, ugly doesn't begin to describe the mere thought that our government would be doing very bad things to other humans, regardless of what they are accused of.

I guess the point here, and there is a point, is that all news can be looked at from a variety of perspectives. Even obviously bad or ugly news can spur us into actions to improve a situation.

I am a daily newspaper reader, in spite of the fact that I spend lots of time online. The paper gives me the luxury of mulling over the story with my partner. We take time to discuss the issue, and I find I'm more likely to followup in some way. Reading the news online seems like such a solitary event.

What are your thoughts?

New Site Look

I've added several photos by my partner Morgan Wyeth. She is a dedicated ameteur photographer (the equipment is anything but cheap, though). If you like her work you can go to Quantum Reiki to see more. By the sites name you might have guessed she also teachs Reiki. As a matter of fact she is a Reiki Master. Take a peak at her site.

Happy Thanksgiving

Hope everyone has a wondderful Thanksgiving, and takes some time to thank the soliders fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We may not all agree on how we got there, how we're doing now, or how we get out; but we can ALL agree on how brave these people are, and how proud we Americans are of them.

Backyard Fighting

This last week has shown the American public a couple of things:

* Democrats aren't afraid of Bush or Republicans in Congress any more.

* Republicans have lost their way in all things political.

Rep Murtha's resolution was certainly a BIG deal. But, the Republicans took something that was mostly inside the Beltway and moved it out across the country. The Congress spoke for hours about Iraq. It's less about the content of the discussion and more about the fact that the DISCUSSION was out there for the public to see.

It stayed on the news and in the public eye for close to a week. This is just one more indication that the Republicans and Bush have lost control of the agenda. Are we hearing anything about Social Security "reform" these days? How about tax "reform"?

The Democrats are taking control of the public's view of what goes on in Wsahington. They must speak clearly, with one voice, and make it abundantly clear that America will be a better country under Democratic leadership.

He's back....

Dick Cheney, that is. Out of his hole to trash the Democrats - agian. This is a bit of what he was up to today:

Vice President Dick Cheney added his voice on Wednesday to the chorus of Republican criticism of Democrats who have accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq, calling it "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

Newsday

The only problem is, the most dishonest and reprehensible person out there IS Dick Cheney. This is from a report just out by Rep. Henry Waxman:

Vice President Cheney made 51 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 25 separate public statements or appearances.

Of the 51 misleading statements by Vice President Cheney, 1 claimed that Iraq posed an urgent threat; 22 exaggerated Iraq’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons; 7 overstated Iraq’s chemical or biological weapons capacity; and 21 misrepresented Iraq’s links to al Qaeda.

Some of the misleading statements made by Vice President Cheney included the following:

• [W]e do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement

system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to

build a nuclear weapon.”114

• Saddam Hussein “had an established relationship with al Qaeda.”115

• “[W]e believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”116

114 Meet the Press, supra note 38.
115 White House, Remarks by the Vice President to the Heritage Foundation (Oct. 10, 2003).
116 Meet the Press, supra note 20.

This man is exhibit A of everything that is wrong with this administration.

Poor Bush

I understand Bush is so distraught these days he will only talk to Laura, Mom, Condi, and Karen.

Insight Magazine also talks about Bush's snit regarding his father, aka 43. Maybe he just can't stand it that Bush Sr. and Clinton have become actual freinds. Oh, the horrors.

I almost feel sorry...oh well, no I don't. What I do feel is a certain fear for the future of this country. Now, that's real I'm sad to say.

What is it about Bush?

I ask myself this question more often than I want to. Is he really as uniformed as he seems? Is he really as simple as he seems? How on earth did this country end up with a leader so clearly unqualified for the position? And, for the life of me, can anyone tell me why conervatives of any stripe other than the evangelical right continues to suport him?

These questions seem reasonable to me. Being a Pragmatic Liberal I don't seek nor expect perfection from my elected officals, especially ones I don't vote for, but Bush isn't even on the charts of those potentially qualified to lead this country.

I can heartily disagree with an elected officical and still acknowledge that they are qualified for the job. But not Bush.

Only, 1100 days or so to go? Can the country take it? Can I?

Activist Judges

I am in the middle of an email conversation with my favorite conservative blogger (and a long distance friend I hope). We're discussing judicial activism. My initial comment went like this:

I'd like to know, besides Roe v Wade, what other big judicial activist cases don't you like? How about Brown v Board of Education or Loring v Virginia. They were both clearly activist decisions weren't they? Should they also be overturned? Should we take away the rights given to blacks in these cases?

He resonded with this:

Oh, please, you're better than that. Arguing that someone who opposes judicial activism is opposed to Brown vs. Board of Education is torching a straw man.... Affirmative action has never been passed by a legislative majority; it has been entirely created through executive orders and judicial rulings. This is, in my humble opinion, wrong; it short-circuits the part of the government that is meant to make the laws on a fundamental question; that is, is there a situation in which judging someone by their skin color is okay.

My attitude on gay marriage is similar. If a law establishing gay marriage pass a legislature, that's building a majority and a consensus; gay marriage supporters "win" fair and square. When a group of judges orders the legislature to change the laws, then the judge is telling the other branches of government, "your opinion, judgment and views do not matter. I am dictating what the laws will be."


My follow-up talks in more depth about Brown and Loring, and uses my conservatives logic as a possible outcome:

Maybe I tended a little toward hyperbole with the Brown vs. Board of Education analogy. But then and, based upon your logic, maybe I didn’t.

Your logic regarding gay marriage could be used with regard to Brown and Loring couldn’t it?

Here’s a bit of history relating to Brown to place it in context:

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas heard Brown's case from June 25-26, 1951. At the trial, the NAACP argued that segregated schools sent the message to black children that they were inferior to whites; therefore, the schools were inherently unequal. One of the expert witnesses, Dr. Hugh W. Speer, testified that:

"...if the colored children are denied the experience in school of associating with white children, who represent 90 percent of our national society in which these colored children must live, then the colored child's curriculum is being greatly curtailed. The Topeka curriculum or any school curriculum cannot be equal under segregation." [6]

The Board of Education's defense was that, because segregation in Topeka and elsewhere pervaded many other aspects of life, segregated schools simply prepared black children for the segregation they would face during adulthood. The board also argued that segregated schools were not neccessarily harmful to black children; great African Americans such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and George Washington Carver had overcome more than just segregated schools to achieve what they achieved. [7] http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/early-civilrights/brown.html

The US District court held that this segregation was allowed basing it on Plessy vs. Ferguson which allowed separate but equal school districts.

It was appealed to the US Supreme court.

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous Court:

"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. [12]

The Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and required the desegregation of schools across America. http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/early-civilrights/brown.html

Now, in this case, no legislative action to undo “separate but equal” had occurred. In fact, those who supported separate but equal had “won” fair and square. And, looking at the Board’s defense, it’s clear no action was likely to be forthcoming any time soon. Should that law have stayed on the books until those who wanted it removed could obtain enough support to win legislative action?

About Loring vs. Virginia, here is a bit of detail:

Loving v. Virginia
Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C. because their home state of Virginia still upheld the antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County, Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in jail, but promised the sentence would be suspended if they agreed to leave the state and not return for 25 years. Forced to move, they returned to Washington D.C. where, in 1963, they initiated a suit challenging the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation law. In March of 1966, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the law, but in June of 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled the law unconstitutional. Thus, in 1967 the 16 states which still had antimiscegenation laws on their books were forced to erase them. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kdown/loving.html

This is the 15th Amendment to the Constitution:

Amendment XV.]

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

In this case, it would seem pretty clear that Virginia had enacted a law whereby the supporters of antimiscegenation had “won” fair and square. Should the law have remained on the books until those who opposed it could find legislative remedies?

The bottom line is, the US Supreme Court is there to determine if laws are legal and within the bounds of the US Constitution, right? Didn’t the Supreme Court do exactly this when they ruled in these two cases? And, if you don’t think so, how do you think this country would look today?

In the end, I suppose one person’s judicial activism in another’s appropriate legal ruling based upon interpretation of the Constitution. I guess if you hold the Constitution to its literal wording and work from the idea that judges can only rule based upon the founders original intent, than this country as we know it today looks nothing like the original idea of our founders. Is that good or bad? Personally, I think it’s not a matter of good or bad, it’s an inevitable response to the passage of time and the evolution of ideas.



Am I wrong? Is there no correlation here?

Alito and Vanguard

I've been reading with interest the possible problems associated with Alito ruling on a case involving Vanguard Funds. Maybe there isn't any "there there", but at the very least it calls into question Alito's judgement. And, basically, being a Supreme Court Justice is all about judgement.

It will be interesting to follow this issue, particularly in light of the weakened state of the Bush Administration.

Wlhat Does It All Mean?

Yesterday we saw the Democrats win governors races in New Jersey and Virginia. That sounds like good news, and it is. We just need to remember that both states had Democratic governors before the election. So, we kept the governships Democratic. I live out here in California, and yesterday the voters said NO to all of the initiatives. I think it had mostly to do with anger toward Arnold for calling a special election, not to mention his gratuitous attacks on teachers and nurses. That said, this state is still in a fiscal mess, and changes do have to be made.

My overall impression of yestersday's elections? My opinion is that overall, Democrats are viewed more favorably than Republicans, and this is something we need to build upon daily. For the upcoming 2006 election cycle, though, we are going to need more than good impressions to win. We need a coordinated national position and plan for all of the issues out there.

Clinton hatred - and reality

I mean Bill Clinton. In my daily foray on to The Corner I see that Jonah Goldberg has posted an email from someone who saw Clinton speak at Butler University last night. A couple of things jump out - the emailer obviously doesn't like Clinton and as a result does not report the speech accurately. More important though, Goldberg passes the email and comments on it without taking two seconds to see if the emailer is even accurate. His own hated of Clinton blinds him to the idea that the emailer may be wrong.

I see this behavior on both the right and the left. We overlay everything we see, hear, or read with our own pre-determined view of the topic. I'm no less guilty I have to say. The point is, do we stand a chance of having an actual discussion about issues and candidates when none of us really come to the table with an open mind?

Testing

Just a little html testing here.




Positive Liberty

body of text

working on seeing how this looks

Talking pro-life

I've just completed an intersting conversation with a regular poster at The Corner. We talked about judges and issues of being pro-life. Just to give you an idea of the conversation, here are several questions I posed: Do you think a person can be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time? Do you think a Supreme Court with a majority of Catholics automatically overturns Roe? Can a Catholic judge place Constitutional law above their own religious beliefs?

As long as the converation stayed philosophical we got along just fine. And, of course, I didn't bring up my own beliefs, rather I asked questions about his beliefs. My impression is that a pro-life person will work very hard to use logic as their basis when making the argument. It adds "value" or "weight" to their beliefs. But, underneath it all, it always comes down to a religous belief, not matter how they sugarcoat it with logic and legalisitc arguments.

Are the any completely right or wrong answers?

Presidental Odds in 2008

I found a good site that keeps track of odds on who will win the 2008 Presidential Race. There is only one odds maker right now, and Hillary is the favorite - no surprise there - but I'm sure more will start following things soon. Here's the link: Odds Checker

Politics is always serious stuff, but it's great political theater too. And, I'm sure those who figure out the odds do their homework, after all there's real money attached to those odds.

Hillary '08 President

Let me be the first, OK, not the first, but an early blogger to state that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008. And, she will be the winner. I know most Dems right now are leary, and the conservatives hope she will be the candidate. I have two things to say; to the Dems - she is the logical and right candidate, and to the conservatives - be careful what you wish for.