The DrewL Bucket

General Taguba speaks...the truth

2007-06-16T21:01:00.000-05:00

General Antonio Taguba investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq, yet was all but ostracized and eventually forced to retire last January in spite of the truthful and honorable manner in which he carried out his investigation. Sy Hersh's latest article in The New Yorker does an exceptional job of detailing what transpired and recounting how it played out inside the Pentagon.

Perhaps the best statement in the article comes from General Taguba, himself, in the final paragraph:

“From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service,” Taguba said. “And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."

Spoken like a true American hero. Sadly, too many in the military establishment have forgotten what it means to serve with honor. As Americans, we all lose in the end when that happens. Here's hoping that we can have more people like General Taguba serving on our behalf. Forcing men like him to retire is a disgrace, plain and simple.

Two words describe this story

2007-05-22T23:08:00.000-05:00

Utter bullshit.

White House: Bin Laden wanted Iraq as a new base

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday declassified intelligence showing in 2005 Osama bin Laden planned to use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks in the United States, according to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

Johndroe said the intelligence was declassified so the president could discuss the previously secret material on Wednesday during a commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy in Connecticut.

The speech will be aimed at defending a key part of the president's war strategy -- the contention that the United States cannot withdraw from Iraq because al Qaeda would fill the vacuum in the Middle East.

"This shows why we believe al Qaeda wants to use Iraq as a safe haven," said Johndroe. He added the president will talk about al Qaeda's "strong interest in using Iraq as a safe haven to plot and plan attacks on the United States and other countries."

The decision also coincides with an ongoing push by the Democratic majority in Congress to force an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq. (Full story)

Bin Laden and a top lieutenant -- Abu Faraj al-Libbi -- planned to form a terror cell in Iraq in order to launch those attacks, Johndroe said.

Al-Libbi was a "senior al Qaeda manager" who in 2005 suggested to bin Laden that bin Laden send Egyptian-born Hamza Rabia to Iraq to help plan attacks on American soil, Johndroe said.

Johndroe noted that bin Laden later suggested to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, that America should be his top priority. That was followed in the spring of 2005 with bin Laden's ordering Rabia to brief al-Zarqawi on plans to attack the United States, Johndroe said.

Johndroe added the intelligence indicates al-Libbi later suggested Rabia should be sent to Iraq to carry out those operations.

But al-Libbi was captured in Pakistan and taken into CIA custody in May 2005. After al-Libbi's capture, the CIA's former acting director, John McLaughlin, described him as bin Laden's chief operating officer, the No. 3 man in al Qaeda.

"Catching terrorists is sometimes like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle without seeing the picture on the box," McLaughlin said at the time. "This is a guy who knows the picture on the box. He knows what the big picture is."

Al-Libbi is a Libyan who joined al Qaeda in the 1990s and fled to Pakistan after the United States invaded Afghanistan in late 2001. U.S. officials say al-Libbi was in contact with and directing alleged al Qaeda members in the United Kingdom who were planning attacks there and in the United States. He was also believed to be behind two 2005 attempts to assassinate Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf.

Rabia took over al-Libbi's position in the organization but was killed in in the North Waziristan tribal area of Pakistan near the Afghan border in December 2005.

Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad in June 2006.

How many soldiers does it take to find...

2007-05-19T22:24:00.000-05:00

You know, while I appreciate the fact that the U.S. military desperately wants to find its three missing soldier s who disappeared after an ambush in Iraq last week, can they really justify tying up 4,000 U.S. troops and 2,000 Iraqi troops in the search? I mean, with all of the tumult going on over there and the need to quell the seemingly entrenched insurgency, one would think those 6,000 military personnel would have more impactful work to do than fruitlessly searching for three soldiers who very well may be dead. I know they want to retrieve their brothers in arms. They would want the same to be done for themselves. But it just doesn't appear to be a good use of scarce resources. And how many more may die in the course of trying to find the others?

It's really unfortunate that the military can't devote that kind of manpower to finding Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri. Perhaps they just weren't that important in the grand scheme of things, after all? At least, not in the minds of the Bush administration? Of course, they're not even in Iraq. Never were. But that's another story for another day, sadly.

I truly hope they are able to locate the three missing soldiers and bring them back alive. Anything less would be a dire disappointment, not to mention a complete waste of time and money...and quite possibly additional lives.

When is a dead rat worth $1,700,000?

2006-10-26T20:24:00.000-05:00

Apparently, when it's found in a McDonald's salad by the wife and the nanny of a Dallas Cowboys coach.

A Dallas Cowboys coach, his wife and the family's nanny have sued a McDonald's owner, alleging they found a dead rat in a salad purchased at a Southlake restaurant.

The lawsuit, which seeks $1.7 million in damages, was filed Thursday in state district court on behalf of Cowboys passing-game coordinator Todd Haley, his wife, Christine Haley, and the family's live-in baby sitter, Kathryn Kelley.

"We tried to work this out," said Scott Casterline, a spokesman for the Haley family.

"We were forced to file a lawsuit. It's a tragic situation for any family to go through.

"Something has to be done to prevent this from ever happening again and to help these ladies to get over this."

Ken Lobato, owner-operator of the McDonald's, said he hadn't seen the litigation so he couldn't respond to the allegation.

"Nothing is more important to us than the safety and well-being of our customers," he said. "We maintain the strictest quality standards. We take these matters seriously and are conducting a full investigation to get all the facts.

"In my years as an owner-operator, I've never seen anything like this," Mr. Lobato said.

According to the lawsuit, Mrs. Haley and Ms. Kelley purchased a salad on June 5 at the drive-through of the McDonald's at 2155 W. Southlake Blvd.

They took the salad home, where both women ate part of it before a dead rodent – thought to be a juvenile roof rat – was uncovered.

The women called the Southlake McDonald's, and a manager came to the house to examine the salad.

The manager asked to take the salad and rat, but the women declined, the lawsuit says.

The women became severely ill and endured long-lasting physical injuries, the lawsuit says. Mrs. Haley, who was nursing, had to feed her baby formula.

"She got violently ill; she couldn't perform her duties as a mother," Mr. Casterline said of Mrs. Haley.

Both women say they suffered severe mental and physical pain and that their dining habits have been altered, the lawsuit says.

While I certainly agree that a dead rat doesn't belong in a McDonald's salad - nor a live one, for that matter - I think it's a bit of a stretch to turn a small, juvenile roof rat into a lawsuit for $1.7 million. Long-lasting physical injuries? Yeah, right.

Some form of compensation clearly is in order, but $1.7 million? Come on!

The end of free speech as we know it

2006-10-05T22:22:00.000-05:00

Who knew that disagreeing with our "esteemed" leadership could land one in jail? The Constitution is dead. Long live the Constitution.

A Denver-area man filed a lawsuit today against a member of the Secret Service for causing him to be arrested after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek this summer and criticized him for his policies concerning Iraq.
Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.

According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," or words to that effect, then walked on.

Ten minutes later, according to Howards' lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had "assaulted" the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.

The lawsuit states that the Secret Service agent instructed that Howards should be issued a summons for harassment, but that on July 6 the Eagle County District Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against Howards.

The lawsuit filed today alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure.

Welcome to life in New Amerika.

Heil, Cheney!

Musharraf in Paris

2006-09-24T22:42:00.000-05:00

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, after visiting President Bush in Washington this week, took a trip to Paris to visit a personal physician and to have some routine medical tests conducted.

Not so unusual, you say. Why not stop in Paris on the way back to Pakistan? Maybe enjoy a fine French meal, too, before heading on to the home country.

Well, believe it or not, we're not talking about Paris, France, here.

No?

No. We're talking about Paris, Texas. As in, out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere (even by the standards of those of us who live in Texas) Paris, Texas.

Gen. Musharraf spoke by phone during an unannounced trip to Texas on Saturday to undergo routine medical tests and visit with a personal physician.

He arrived at Paris (Texas) Regional Medical Center in the late morning for a checkup with cardiologist Arjumand Hashmi. Hospital officials said Gen. Musharraf was "found to be in excellent health."

After the president had his checkup, he attended a lunch in Paris before departing for Dallas. Later, he visited the doctor's Highland Park home.

"This is a beautiful place you have here," he said of his first visit to Texas.

Dr. Hashmi said he was simply "meeting an old friend" when asked about the high-profile patient on Friday.

"It's a private visit," he said "There's nothing to it."

Interesting. Not sure why he needed to travel all the way to Paris, Texas, to undergo routine medical tests. Kind of unusual, if you ask me, but who knows? Perhaps Dr. Hashmi is an old friend of the General's from Pakistan, so Musharraf thought he would stop by while he was in the "neighborhood".

It's not every day that the President of Pakistan, a major player on the current, worldwide political stage, pays a visit to little old Paris, Texas. No doubt, some locals were taken by surprise.

In both Paris and Highland Park, the cloak-and-dagger visit generated a buzz in two normally sedate small towns.

A motorcade of more than two dozen cars, including state trooper vehicles, Secret Service cars and a Paris hospital ambulance made the trip from Dallas to Paris mid-morning.

Phillip Hamilton, managing editor of The Paris News, said that about 20 people, including at least one other Paris physician, were at the house and dined with Gen. Musharraf.

He said the Pakistani president stood up to say goodbye shortly before 3 p.m.

In retrospect, maybe those reports of people seeing Osama bin Laden in the area aren't so farfetched after all.

Quote of the Day: "...Republicans have a better record and a better commitment to national security than the Democrats do"

2006-09-24T21:58:00.000-05:00

That was Jerry Falwell's assessment while discussing prospects for the 2008 presidential election.

And just what planet is he living on?

If memory serves me correctly, the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil occurred eight months after George W. Bush took office. And, as the 9/11 Commission Report discusses in painstaking detail, the Bush administration continuously ignored warnings that Osama bin Laden was planning a major attack. Even former Bush administration officials have revealed that Bush and company weren't interested in listening to Clinton administration officials who warned them to be on guard for possible terrorist activity.

Was Bush interested? No. And that's a proven fact.

What have Republicans done to secure our borders, our ports or our chemical plants over the last five years? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Obviously, Jerry Falwell is as clueless as ever. And that's not to mention his other statement that Hillary Clinton would have a tougher time getting votes from Falwell's "flock" than would Lucifer.

Huh?

The Christian fundamentalists just continue to look goofier and goofier every day. At this rate, it won't be long before they make certain Islamic militants look downright civil in comparison.

Thanks for your keen insight into the political scene, Jerry. Next time perhaps you could try speaking in tongues. You might make more sense.

NY Times: NIE says Iraq war has made terror threat worse

2006-09-23T16:27:00.000-05:00

According to an article in today's NY Time s, a soon-to-be-published National Intelligence Estimate concludes that the United States' involvement in Iraq has, indeed, exacerbated the worldwide threat of terrorism.

A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

To that I say, "No shit, Sherlock!"

The question remains, how will the Bush administration use this news to bolster Republicans' chances in the upcoming November elections?

On the surface, one would think the NIE report is a death knell for Republicans' chances. After all, how can they dare to say, "We'll keep America safe", when their policies clearly have left America less safe?

No doubt, those on the right will say that the world has become such an unsafe place that only they can protect us adequately. They'll argue that America hasn't suffered another terrorist attack since 9/11/01, thereby proving that they can protect us better than can Democrats.

Sadly, far too many of America's ignorati (as I like to call the vast, ignorant class in this country) will lap that message up like cats at a saucer of warm milk.

But the reality is that we cannot afford to trust those who have allowed - or even encouraged - the terrorist threat to fester over the last five years. What, in fact, has the Bush administration really done to diminish that threat, as they so boldly proclaimed they would do after the Twin Towers fell? Nothing!

On the contrary, the Bush administration went off and invaded Iraq, a nation that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with terrorism or 9/11. And now we learn that this invasion and the subsequent quagmire-cum-civil-war has made things worse.

Brilliant!

It's time to vote these numbskulls out of office. And once that happens, then it will be time to hold the Bush administration accountable for its crimes, of which there are many. The sooner, the better.

Here we go again!

2006-09-14T21:23:00.000-05:00

The IAEA has come out blasting a recent report from the U.S. House Intelligence Committee regarding Iran's alleged uranium enrichment program. Interestingly, though not surprisingly, this situation seems to mirror what we saw four years ago in the run-up to war in Iraq.

The International Atomic Energy Agency wrote the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, lambasting it for claiming that the Islamic republic "is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade."

Iran is far from that capability, the IAEA said. (Watch how the IAEA and the House disagree -- 2:00)

Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who sits on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which prepared the report, said the subcommittee's assertion is "very clear."

"It says that we don't believe that they've gotten there. But the point of that whole section is, they are trying to enrich uranium to weapons grade," he said.

The subcommittee's report also insinuates that the IAEA may be in cahoots with Tehran in covering up Iran's nuclear ambitions.

So, what are the similarities between Iran and Iraq?

- Dubious U.S. intelligence claims about weapons of mass destruction.
- Criticism of the IAEA over its monitoring practices and reports.
- Unsubstantiated claims of WMD development by a dissident.

Hmmmm. Curious.

And just who is this Iranian dissident who claims to have inside knowledge of Iran's nuclear weapons development?

On Thursday, Iranian dissident Alireza Jafarzadeh told reporters in New York that Iran was operating a laser uranium-enrichment program in its quest for a nuclear warhead.

The information was obtained by opposition sources, said Jafarzadeh, president of Strategic Policy Consulting Inc., a terrorism consulting firm. Those sources made the same claim in 2002.

The current operation, Jafarzadeh told reporters, was set up in the same area near Tehran as the program opposition sources announced in 2002.

However, an analyst for a group opposed to nuclear proliferation questioned the accuracy of Jafarzadeh's allegation.

"Why would Iran put a secret laser enrichment facility in the same place where it had it in the first place? To me, that just doesn't make a whole amount of sense," said Paul Brannan, a research analyst with the nonprofit Institute for Science and International Security.

This guy, aside from the fact that he runs a terrorism consulting firm (whatever the hell that is), doesn't sound all that much different than "Curveball", the Iraqi informant who claimed to have inside knowledge of Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities. As we found out, Curveball was a loose nut just looking for a free ride. Yet we apparently relied on his con-job - even though the Germans knew he was unstable - to support a course for war.

Deja vu...all over again. Brilliant!

Another worrisome point that has been reported to be a part of the House intelligence report concerns the generation of electricity. According to the report, the authors wonder why an oil-rich nation such as Iran would even need nuclear energy to generate electricity. Couldn't they just use their vast reserves of crude oil to power the nation for generations to come?

To be blunt, that supposition is utter nonsense. You see, crude oil isn't used much to generate electricity in developed countries. It's far too inefficient and costly compared to coal, natural gas, water, wind and NUCLEAR generated electricity. It just isn't done. Period.

In fact, in 2004 petroleum was used for barely three-percent of total U.S. net electricity generation. It trailed coal, nuclear energy, natural gas and water - in that order - as the top electricity fuel sources in the U.S.

Apparently, those in the U.S. House of Representatives believe Americans are too ignorant and uninformed to know any different. They believe that more lies will allow them to gain support for action against Iran.

Just like with Iraq.

Yes, here we go again.

Ann Richards, RIP

2006-09-13T22:10:00.000-05:00

Ann Richards, former Texas Governor and a pepperpot of a politician, has died of cancer at the age of 73. She will be missed.

I voted for Governor Richards in the 1994 election when she faced George W. Bush, a political novice. Sadly, more Texans didn't vote for Ms. Richards. If they had, we might not be in quite the mess we are today with Mr. Bush in the White House. Ahhh, what could have been? We'll never know.

Rest in peace, Ann. You are missed in Texas, in more ways than you could know.

Quote of the Day: "If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation."

2006-09-12T23:32:00.000-05:00

That was the brilliant advice of U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne.

Sure, let's just test our weaponry on our own citizens before using it against our enemies. Now that makes a lot of sense.

And just who will these citizens be?

Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

Crowd control situations, eh? Would that include people who may organize to voice their disagreement with U.S. government policies?

With people such as Wynne leading the charge, is it really such a stretch to believe that our own government may have had a hand in the attacks of 9/11? It certainly provided the perfectly convenient excuse to wage war, just as the neo-conservative PNACers long have wanted.

Food for thought...

In its effort to promote democracy, the United States blows.

2006-09-04T17:32:00.000-05:00

Former Iranian President - and noted moderate - Mohammad Khatami is right on the money with his comments made during a trip to the United States this week:

"(Q)uite frankly, I would tell (Bush) that the policies that the United States has chosen unfortunately have brought about the wrong sentiment toward the United States and has only increased, and will only increase, extremism in our region."

He argued that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has increased hatred for the United States in the Mideast, leading more young people to join terrorist groups.

While the United States tries to force others to accept democracy, its overtly militaristic approach to the Middle East serves only to tick them off. It would tick me off, too.

In many ways, the United States' approach is similar to that of the Wind in Aesop's well-known fable about the battle between the Sun and the Wind to entice a man to remove his cloak. The lesson being that kindness effects more than severity. As the U.S. attempts to blow its way through the Middle East, its harsh manner only serves to alienate people rather than to encourage them to open up to a message of freedom and democracy.

Perhaps U.S. policy makers could take a lesson from the Sun, which used a much more subtle and warming method to achieve its objective.

Former President Khatami said it well:

Asked what he would tell President Bush if he could speak with him, Khatami replied: "I would tell him that the United States, with all of its might and resources, can, side by side with the good people of the Middle East, bring about a new experience and the creation of democracy and the advancement of democracy, even though the way to democracy may have been slow originating in the Mideast. With a change of the language going from threats to ... mutual understanding, the United States can have a better position in the region.

Sadly, the Bush administration and its neo-con power center likely will turn deaf ears to Mr. Khatami's sound advice. After all, it's the way they do things. They don't listen. They just look for more people to attack, either literally or figuratively.

I guess one could say that Mr. Khatami sees the light, while the Bush administration just blows.

So what else is new?

The Warfare State

2006-08-31T21:35:00.000-05:00

We've all heard the term, "welfare state", bandied about over the years. Mostly, it's conservatives' disdainful term for government-run programs whose primary aim is to help the poor and disadvantaged among us. Welfare is a dirty word to most on the right, even though it has proven to help millions of Americans get back on their feet.

Over the last several years, however, we've begun to see a new type of "state" emerge. But it has nothing to do with helping the poor. In fact, just the opposite. One might even refer to it as the "warfare state".

What is the warfare state?

Top U.S. executives in the oil and defense industry have been able to translate war and rising oil prices into bigger paychecks, according to a study released Wednesday.
Since the war on terror began, CEOs of the top 34 defense contractors have seen pay levels that are double the amounts they received during the four years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, according to the report from the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.

Rising oil prices have translated into a 50 percent increase in pay for chief executive officers at the nation's top 15 oil companies since 2004.

Last year, defense industry CEOs walked off with 44 times more pay than military generals with 20 years experience and 308 times more than Army privates, the study showed.

The report surveyed all publicly held U.S. corporations among the top 100 defense contractors that had at least 10 percent of revenues in defense. These 34 CEOs combined have pocketed almost a billion dollars since 9/11.

In the oil sector, executives are making nearly three times the pay of CEOs in comparably sized businesses, according to the study.

As one can see, the warfare state is one that takes money from the pockets of the poor and the middle class and puts it directly into the pockets of war profiteers. It's Robin Hood in reverse. Steal from the poor and give to the rich. And it's just plain wrong.

When our government leaders, many of whom have vast personal and family-related financial interests in the industries in question, implement policy that enriches such companies far beyond what most would consider to be a reasonable return, then something is drastically out of whack. Why should a large slice of the three dollars per gallon we pay at the pump and the tax dollars we send to the IRS funnel almost directly into the pockets of multi-millionaire executives?

In effect, this reverse welfare is draining the coffers of workaday Americans, most of whom can little afford it, and grossly enriching those who don't need it. Are the rank and file employees of these companies seeing much additional income? Very unlikely.

So the oil and defense companies continue to rack up record quarterly profits while most Americans sink further into debt. Is that the American way? I don't think so.

No. It's the newest state in the union. The Warfare State.

Separation Anxiety

2006-08-26T23:27:00.000-05:00

Why is it so difficult for politicians in our society to grasp the concept of separation of church and state? Lately, political leaders at various levels have shown themselves to be downright ignorant of this fairly basic tenet of our governmental system.

First it was Florida's Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Katherine Harris, claiming that a vote against a Christian was akin to a vote for sin.

Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a "nation of secular laws" and that the separation of church and state is a "lie we have been told" to keep religious people out of politics.
"If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris told interviewers from the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention. She cited abortion and same-sex marriage as examples of that sin.

With every passing day, Rep. Harris appears to shovel another pile of earth onto the pine planks of her rapidly vanishing, political casket. It's looking more and more like her future Sundays will be spent in church rather than on the political discussion shows. I'm sure her pastor will be tickled pink to see her odd, cosmetically-altered mug gracing the pews of his house of worship come January. Better there than on my television screen, thank you very much!

In another instance of political God-mongering, several cities in Texas are banding together to proclaim September 3rd as an official day of prayer. What will they be praying for?

Deliverance from evil?

A Tom Delay victory in November?

A nuclear holocaust in Iran?

Nope on all accounts. In fact, they will be praying for...rain.

I swear, you just can't make this stuff up!

Conservation hasn't kept North Texas water supplies from dwindling, and waiting for rain hasn't worked.

So Rockwall County's political leaders are looking to a higher power.

"All of us can come together as a county and recognize what we're going through and focus on the issue and then ask God for some relief," Rockwall Mayor Bill Cecil said.

Mr. Cecil, five counterparts – the mayors of Rowlett, Heath, Royse City, Fate and McLendon-Chisholm – and County Judge Bill Bell plan to proclaim Sept. 3 a day of prayer for rain.

They're asking religious leaders throughout the county to lead their congregations in prayer for an end to the drought, for weather patterns to get back to normal and for North Texas reservoirs to be refilled.

"It can't hurt," Fate Mayor David Hill said.

"Way back in time, people used to do rain dances. If we have to get out and do a rain dance, we'll do that, too."

The power of prayer seemed to work briefly during Monday night's Rockwall City Council meeting. Barely an hour after council member Tim McCallum asked for rain during the invocation, the skies opened up.

The brief shower did little but dampen the streets, however.

National Weather Service meteorologist Jason Dunn chuckled when told of the prayer plans in Rockwall County. If the appeal for reservoirs to be filled is answered, he indicated, people should brace themselves for an extended period of storms.

"We're going to need several months of above-normal rainfall," Mr. Dunn said. "It's not going to be anything that's going to come overnight."

As the drought has continued, reservoir levels have steadily declined. Lake Lavon – one of the primary water sources for the North Texas Municipal Water District, which supplies Rockwall, northeastern Dallas, Collin and Kaufman counties – is about 15 feet below normal. Many other lakes, including Lewisville and Grapevine, are down 10 feet or more.

Mr. Cecil said that although all of North Texas needs rain, he is keeping his focus close to home. Heath Mayor John Ratcliffe said that, if nothing else, the countywide prayer will lead to more awareness of the drought.

"I see a call for prayer as a good thing if it accomplishes nothing other than bringing people together," he said.

Personally, I hope the Christian "rain dance" does some good. My lawn really could use the moisture. However, I'm just not sure that political leaders should be the ones to push a religious solution to such a problem. For one thing, it makes them look ignorant of the very basic tenet of separation of church and state. Secondly - and, perhaps, more importantly - it makes them look downright silly.

But, then, what do I know? I'm a Democrat - and a non-religious one, at that. Perhaps they should be praying for me instead!

Israel quickly becoming insufferable

2006-08-20T21:13:00.000-05:00

So, now the Israelis want to dictate which countries can or cannot contribute to the international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon. Apparently, they do no want troops from any country with which Israel does not maintain diplomatic relations.

As the decided aggressor in its armed conflict with Hezbollah, Israel hardly has much of a leg to stand on when it comes to selecting who may or may not participate. At this point, very few countries have stepped forward with a commitment. Among the few are Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, none of which maintains diplomatic ties to Israel.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday that Israel will not accept the presence of peacekeepers in Lebanon from countries that don't have diplomatic relations with the Jewish state, according to officials.
The decision complicated efforts by the United Nations to form a 15,000-strong peacekeeping force to help enforce a truce that ended 34 days of fighting between Israel and the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah.

The decision was made at a meeting of Olmert's inner Security Cabinet, meeting participants said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak to the media.

What? Is Israel afraid that troops from these countries might actually side with Hezbollah - as most of the rest of Lebanon seems to be doing - and turn against Israel?

Perhaps it's time for Israelis to look in the mirror and understand that many in the world who once were sympathetic to their situation no longer are. They are turning into a belching, farting Uncle Fred who comes for a short visit but never leaves.

In other words, they are overstaying their welcome in the world's consciousness.

Come on, Uncle Fred. It's time to go home and stop being such a pain the ass!

Quote of the Day: “Blacks aren’t the best swimmers or may not even know how to swim.”

2006-08-20T12:39:00.000-05:00

That "beaut" was uttered several months ago - but just now is making its way public - by Florida Republican congressional candidate Tramm Hudson, who is running to fill Katherine Harris's 13th district seat in November. The Republican primary is September 5th.

Republican Congressional candidate Tramm Hudson was forced Thursday to explain a controversial racial comment he made during a February speech to the Christian Coalition, after a video clip of the event appeared on an Internet site.
Hudson was relating a military training exercise in Panama from 1984 when his unit had to get across a river. He said his unit was predominantly comprised of black soldiers.

"I grew up in Alabama and I understand, and I know this from my own experiences, that blacks aren't the best swimmers or may not even know how to swim," Hudson said at the event. A black soldier ended up falling in the water and nearly drowned, Hudson said. Hudson attributed the soldier's survival to "divine intervention."

Hudson was talking to the Christian Coalition about his wishes that religion not be kept out of the military.

The video clip on the Internet cuts off a few seconds after Hudson's comments about blacks and swimming.

The release of the clip quickly became more fodder for a growing personal battle between Hudson and Vern Buchanan, another Republican in the 13th District Congressional race who has recently become the target of Hudson campaign mailers, television advertisements and even a Web site entitled "The Real Vern." Hudson, who has made ethics the cornerstone of his campaign, has accused Buchanan of having poor business ethics and faulty resumes and for avoiding paying his fair share of taxes.

While Buchanan said during a candidate's forum Thursday that Hudson's comments revealed that "he does not have the judgment to be a congressman," Hudson issued an apology Thursday and encouraged voters to look at comments from local black leaders that show this to be "much ado about nothing."

"I said something stupid," Hudson said in a statement released Thursday. "I apologize for it. . . . This was a thoughtless remark that does not reflect my lifetime commitment to treating everyone fairly and without bias."

While Hudson's broader message may have been appropriate for his audience, if he's going to play in the political arena, then he absolutely MUST learn to speak more carefully. In an age of sound bites, it's very easy for an off-the-cuff comment to be misconstrued and misunderstood. Hudson's comment about the swimming ability of blacks is a stereotype that he seems to believe, in spite of the fact that former University of Florida All-America and Olympic swimmer Anthony Nesty is, in fact, black. But I guess that would have put a hole in the story he was trying to relate.

On a personal note, Tramm Hudson was a business co-worker of mine many years ago. Even back then, he had a deserved reputation as a loose cannon. He even kept a hand grenade on his desk for good measure. Due to his fervent military ties, his aggressive nature and his short stature, many of us referred to him as "Napoleon". Believe me, the name fit.

Tramm also displayed a penchant for dated customs, such as men repairing to the den for brandy and cigars after dinner while the women stayed in the kitchen doing the dishes. Even in the 1980s, that seemed a bit behind-the-times to those of us who dined in his home.

Tramm Hudson may, in fact, have some very positive attributes he could bring to Washington. However, he appears to be a candidate more attuned to the 1950s than the 2000s. We need leaders in Washington with an eye on the future rather than two feet dug deeply in the past.

Here's hoping Hudson continues his banking career in Sarasota and leaves the governing to more progressive types. And to those who do not so easily stereotype the abilities of others.

Delay's would-be replacement cites "war on terror" as key issue

2006-08-19T14:24:00.000-05:00

I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the top Republican write-in candidate to replace Tom Delay believes the "war on terror" is the key issue in her campaign. It's about all the Republicans seem capable of running on these days. Since they can't generate support focusing on the important, day-to-day issues facing middle-class Americans, then they might as well try to scare people into voting for them. It's the Republican way.

Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs said Friday her write-in campaign to replace former House Majority leader Tom DeLay will focus on her support for the war on terror.
Republican precinct chairmen in the four suburban Houston counties that make up the 22nd Congressional District endorsed the write-in candidacy of Sekula-Gibbs Thursday and promised her the party's support.
"I have heard from the base that it is critical we support the war on terror and we protect our country from acts of violence against our citizens," she said. "So supporting the president's war on terror is extremely important to me."

She's heard from "the base", eh? Then her base must be comprised mostly of parrots, who have become conditioned to mimic the fear-mongering that eminates constantly from the Bush White House.

But Sekula-Gibbs won't be the only one spewing a campaign of fear between now and November. Get ready for non-stop, 24x7 scare tactics around the country, including frequent embellishment from Bush and company.

After all, they know it works.

And they know no other way.

What do the Israelis not understand about the words, "cease fire"?

2006-08-19T13:06:00.000-05:00

Not even one week into the UN-engineered cease fire in Lebanon, the Israelis apparently can't seem to stop their aggression as they pull their troops back into Israel. While Hezbollah is already helping the Lebanese people to salvage and re-build their devastated communities, Israeli Defense Forces continue to blow things up. And the terrorists would be....?

Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep inside Lebanon Saturday, sparking a fierce clash with militants that killed one Israeli. Lebanon called the raid a "flagrant violation" of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire, while Israel said it was aimed at disrupting arms shipments from Iran and Syria.
Witnesses said Israeli missiles also destroyed a bridge during the raid in what would be the first such airstrike since the cease-fire took effect Monday, ending 34 days of warfare between the two sides.

Israel's month-long assault on Lebanon's burgeoning economy and infrastructure already had turned many, otherwise neutral Lebanese in favor of Hezbollah. Now, with Hezbollah's doling out repair money and Israel's continuing to shell Lebanon's countryside, is it any wonder that this conflict may have done more to hurt Israel's propaganda-driven cause than any other recent event? Hezbollah has come off looking like the good guys while the Israelis look, well, pathetic.

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora called Saturday's commando raid a "flagrant violation" of the cease-fire, and said he would take the issue up with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Murr said the raid could spark Hezbollah retaliation, which in turn could lead to Israeli reprisals. He suggested Israel might be trying to provoke a response, so it could have an excuse to attack the Lebanese army. "We will not send the army to be prey in an Israeli trap," he said.

Under the cease-fire terms, Israel has said it will conduct defensive operations if its troops are threatened. But the raid took place far from positions of Israeli troops in southern Lebanon.

Given that most observers believe Israel was the big loser, both militarily and politically, in the conflict with Hezbollah, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised to see a desperate attempt by Israel to reclaim its self-styled "moral high ground". Even if it means creating smoke screens to justify further action. They've done it before. They'll do it again.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese people just want to get their lives back to normal. And the helping hand assisting in that effort appears to be that of Hezbollah. In the age-old tug of war between guns and butter, methinks the Lebanese choose butter. Hezbollah butter.

Quote of the Day: "We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks."

2006-08-14T22:49:00.000-05:00

That was George W. Bush during today's press conference, speaking about the armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. And just as Bush and company are wont to do, the President had to go out of his way to bait the Iranians while refusing to place any of the blame at the feet of the Israelis.

President Bush declared Lebanon a front in the "global war on terrorism" Monday, equating the Israeli battle against Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas to the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush said Hezbollah and its supporters in Iran and Syria were responsible for the 34-day war, and called that conflict "part of a broader struggle between freedom and terror." (Watch Bush blame Hezbollah, Iran and Syria for the crisis -- 2:06)

Bush said the U.N. resolution that took effect early Monday was an "important step that will help bring an end to the violence."

He said the conflict was a win for his administration's policy of encouraging democracy in the Middle East and a defeat for Hezbollah, discounting a claim of victory issued by the Shiite Muslim militia's leader earlier Monday.

Encouraging democracy? If what Israel did to Lebanon over the last month can be construed as encouraging democracy, then perhaps communism deserves a makeover and a fresh new look for next spring. Lebanon has been held up as a shining example of democracy and economic development in the Middle East. Its mix of ethnicities and religions was to be an example for the rest of the region of how people could co-exist peacefully.

So what do the neo-cons and Israel do? They, almost literally, bomb the country back twenty years. Members of Lebanon's Shia community, in particular, voted in democratic elections to have members of Hezbollah serve in Lebanon's government on their behalf. I thought that was what democracy was all about, regardless of who the people may vote for. It's their choice, isn't it, in a democracy?

Apparently not if you're the Bush administration and you don't like who they voted for. Of course, this kind of makes some sense when one considers that Bush's very own vice president, Dick Cheney, referred to those who voted for Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman as being supportive of al Qaeda. Maybe the plan is to bomb Hartford next?

The neo-con war machine drones on...and on...and on. Clearly, the stage is being set for eventual armed conflict with Iran, which Seymour Hersh's recent article in The New Yorker would seem to confirm. The actions by Israel and its U.S. supporters were a mere dry run for future action targeting Tehran.

Here we go again.

Did U.S. force the Brits to jump the gun on Liquidati?

2006-08-12T21:00:00.000-05:00

NBC News reports that U.S. officials pressured the British to move in and arrest those suspected of plotting the bombing of airliners over the Atlantic. Strangely, according to a UK source, several of the "Liquidati" suspects didn't even have passports. It seems that getting onto an international flight would have been a bit difficult without such a document. But what do I know?

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.

The source did say, however, that police believe one U.K.-based suspect was ready to conduct a "dry run." British authorities had wanted to let him go forward with part of the plan, but the Americans balked.

At the White House, a top aide to President Bush denied the account.

Why the rush? Was there a politically expedient reason for the U.S. to push for the bust? Why not wait and continue to surveil the situation?

Recent busts of alleged terrorist cells in Toronto, Miami and Lebanon (related to the NYC threat) all seem to have had somewhat odd timing. A cynic might even suggest that they all were timed for maximum media effect, including the latest event in the UK. None were anywhere near the execution stage, assuming that any of them could have reached that stage in the first place. But they have been spread out nicely over the last few months, perhaps quite purposefully.

At this rate, we should expect another big terror bust by, oh, mid-September. Hmmm. Just in time for the upcoming five-year anniversary of 9/11. I'm sure that will be a good one. I can hardly wait.

Quote of the Day: "It was like, 'Whoa, where did that come from?' "

2006-08-02T20:40:00.000-05:00

That quote came from an anonymous individual who was present in March 2001 at an Oval Office meeting between President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. And the comment was made in reference to a promise that Mr. Bush made to Mr. Sharon on that day.

So, you ask, what was that promise?

The first President Bush had been tough on Israel, especially the Israeli settlements in occupied lands that Mr. Sharon had helped develop. But over tea in the Oval Office that day in March 2001 — six months before the Sept. 11 attacks tightened their bond — the new president signaled a strong predisposition to support Israel.
“He told Sharon in that first meeting that I’ll use force to protect Israel, which was kind of a shock to everybody,” said one person present, given anonymity to speak about a private conversation. “It was like, ‘Whoa, where did that come from?’ “

That's right, President George "Dubya" Bush made a promise quite unlike any made before when it came to Israel, a promise that his father knew to steer far clear of during his own presidency over a decade earlier. And, one must note, this historically significant promise came a full six months prior to the infamous terror attacks of 9/11/01. Bush had been in office a mere two months when he decided to throw all caution to the wind.

What in the hell was he thinking?

That embrace of Israel represents a generational and philosophical divide between the Bushes, one that is exacerbating the friction that has been building between their camps of advisers and loyalists over foreign policy more generally. As the president continues to stand by Israel in its campaign against Hezbollah — even after a weekend attack that left many Lebanese civilians dead and provoked international condemnation — some advisers to the father are expressing deep unease with the Israel policies of the son.

“The current approach simply is not leading toward a solution to the crisis, or even a winding down of the crisis,” said Richard N. Haass, who advised the first President Bush on the Middle East and worked as a senior State Department official in the current president’s first term. “There are times at which a hands-off policy can be justified. It’s not obvious to me that this is one of them.”

Unlike the first President Bush, who viewed himself as a neutral arbiter in the delicate politics of the Middle East, the current president sees his role through the prism of the fight against terrorism. This President Bush, unlike his father, also has deep roots in the evangelical Christian community, a staunchly pro-Israeli component of his conservative Republican base.

The first President Bush came to the Oval Office with long diplomatic experience, strong ties to Arab leaders and a realpolitik view that held the United States should pursue its own strategic interests, not high-minded goals like democracy, even if it meant negotiating with undemocratic governments like Syria and Iran.

The current President Bush has practically cut off Syria and Iran, overlaying his fight against terrorism with the aim of creating what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls “a new Middle East.” In allying himself so closely with Israel, he has departed not just from his father’s approach but also from those of all his recent predecessors, who saw themselves first and foremost as brokers in the region.

This approach to the Middle East and Israel, in particular, bears all the markings of the PNAC neo-conservative movement headlined by the likes of William Kristol, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Their overtly militaristic approach to the world and the Middle East, especially, is manifested in the United States' involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now in the Israelis' ongoing assault on Lebanon. Clearly, Syria and Iran are next on the their list of conquests, and the rest of the world may be virtually powerless to keep it from happening.

When former presidential aides - on both ends of the political spectrum - begin to seriously question the policies and motives of the current Bush administration, it's high time that the rest of us sit up and take notice. Any reasonable prospects for lasting peace in this crazy world of ours may, quite literally, hang in the balance.

Anyone for Charades?

2006-07-08T13:02:00.000-05:00

With so many terrorist plots being uncovered and foiled of late, the Bush administration and its allies really appear to be on top of things in this war on terror. I mean, they're just hitting home run after home run in bringing these jihadist thugs to justice.

First we had the group in Toronto suspected of planning multiple attacks around that city. Then we had the radical group from Miami planning to bring down the Sears Tower in Chicago. And now, we have a Lebanese man arrested for plotting to bomb tunnels and bridges in NYC. Who will be next? There's nothing quite like kicking butt and taking prisoners in this effort to stamp out terrorism, both here and abroad. It makes me so proud to be an American.

Now...back to reality.

It's pretty clear that all of this terror-cell-busting activity is nothing but a red herring designed to spread fear and to instill a sense of confidence that our leaders are fighting the good fight to rid the planet of Islamic militants who are intent on destroying America. In other words, it's all a bunch of bullshit!

In the two most recent plots, the authorities have simultaneously warned that the suspects were contemplating horrific attacks — blowing up the Sears Tower in Chicago and setting off a bomb in a tunnel between New York and New Jersey — but then added that as far as they knew, no one was close to actually making such a strike.

In the Miami case, an F.B.I. official said at a recent hearing that the suspects apparently did not have written information on how to make explosives, details on the layout of the Sears Tower or any known link to a terrorist group.

In New York, officials said Friday that none of the eight suspects believed to be planning the tunnel attack were in the United States, and that they apparently did not have bomb materials and had not completed reconnaissance work on their supposed target.

The arrest on April 27 in Beirut of Assem Hammoud, 31, a Lebanese man who is accused of being the mastermind of the tunnel plot, came after the authorities monitored Internet chat rooms used by Islamic extremists who had used coded language to discuss a possible attack. One American official said the members of the group had never met one another.

None of the alleged "terror cells" had either the means or the wherewithal to carry out such attacks. In fact, if the authorities had, indeed, been interested in tracking and infiltrating legitimate terrorist organizations, they wouldn't have exposed any of these groups. Instead, they would have continued to work them and monitor them in order to identify and locate any of the actual masterminds behind such activity.

Instead, press conferences and front page headlines trumpeting apparent victories in the "war on terror" seemed to be our leaders' overriding objectives. All style over substance.

Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond in Virginia who tracks terrorism cases, said the modest evidence disclosed so far in some recent cases related to the ability of the suspects to deliver on their threats had caused him to wonder if politics might be a factor.

"There is some kind of public relations gained by making Americans on the one hand feel concerned that the Sears Tower in Chicago or some tunnel in Manhattan is targeted, yet on the other hand feel comforted that the government is on top of it," he said.

Don't be surprised to see several more of these charades play out in the coming weeks and months. It's all part of the ongoing deception of the American people. Sadly, far too many Americans fall for it hook, line and sinker. And the neo-con core of the Bush administration knows it.

Quote of the Day: "The U.S. government opposes prostitution. These activities are inherently harmful and dehumanizing."

2006-06-09T20:10:00.000-05:00

To celebrate the beginning of the 2006 World Cup, which kicked off today in Germany, the United States is warning the Germans to crack down on its legal sex trade operation just as hundreds of thousands of foreign football fans flock to the country to root on their sides and party like there's no tomorrow.

A U.S. congressman and other anti-trafficking advocates estimate that thousands of foreign women, many from Eastern Europe, will be forced into sex work during the four-week tournament that begins June 9. (SI.com: World Cup Special)

At a briefing, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denounced "the sordid trade in human beings" and said the fight against trafficking is "a great moral calling of our time."

"Together we will stop at nothing to end the debasement of our fellow men," she said.

This morally strict stance on the treatment of others is all the more ironic given recent news surrounding the United States' attempts to exempt itself from certain key provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

The Pentagon plans to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that bans ``humiliating and degrading treatment," according to military officials. Such a step would mark a shift from strict adherence to international rights standards.

Hmmmm. The United States government playing the part of the hypocrite? How can that be?

To be fair, this situation seems to underline an apparent conflict between the Department of Defense, which wants to minimize the constraints on its ability to do as it pleases around the globe, and the State Department, which prefers to promote the ideal of treating others with respect. At least, that's the way it's playing out on the surface.

The State Department fiercely opposes the military's decision to exclude Geneva Convention protections, and has been pushing for the Pentagon and White House to reconsider, Defense Department officials said.

Regardless of this apparent internal conflict, the fact remains that the U.S. government presents itself as the hypocrite that many around the world know it to be. Conflicting messages like this continue to foment disdain for the United States and simply reinforce long-held beliefs that we cannot be trusted.

In other words, it's the same-old, same-old.

Exxon Mobil's "Can't-do" Attitude

2006-05-30T22:44:00.000-05:00

In an era of $3.00 gas and oil companies' multi-billion-dollar quarterly profits, it's so refreshing to hear Exxon Mobil's CEO Rex Tillerson talk about how his company will lead the charge to develop alternative fuels and the technology to make them economically viable. Of course, as the CEO of a Fortune 50 company, one absolutely must have a clear vision of what's to come and a concrete plan for how to get there.

So, when asked recently by the Dallas Morning News to describe the coming explosion in alternative fuels development, here's what Mr. Tillerson had to say:

The day will come when we'll move from oil and fossil fuels to something different. It may or may not come in my lifetime. But what I know is, the day I die, I'll probably get driven to my funeral in something that uses hydrocarbons.

For the record, Mr. Tillerson is 54 years old. Surely, he must have a terminal disease that will see his life end soon, right? I mean, he's not seriously talking about being driven to his funeral in thirty years or so in a conventional, gasoline-powered vehicle, is he?

Is Mr. Tillerson joking? Well, as it turns out...not so much.

I think it would be a good idea if people used gasoline a little more efficiently. I'm not worried about it because you know gasoline, oil, natural gas, are so instrumental to people's lives today, both from an economic standpoint and from a quality of life standpoint.

And there is absolutely nothing out there for the next 30 years that's going to change that. ... Now, I'm not saying therefore I have a captive market and I can treat it however I want to. That's not the case either, because there are plenty of other people who want to sell gasoline into the market, too. ...

People will ... alter their habits around how to use gasoline when it gets too high ... unless people have concluded that this price is not inconvenient to them.

So far everything I see others investing in, they're losing money. There have been huge write-offs by some of my competitors of their investments in solar energy. There have been huge write-offs by some of my competitors of their investment in wind.

This biofuels phenomenon is very recent, like in the last six months. And it took an act of Congress to mandate its use and to leave in place a subsidy to make that work.

Okay. So, we've got oil and gas companies making billions of dollars in quarterly profits. We've got the same companies saying they need to spend up to one hundred billion dollars - yes, $100 BILLION - in the coming years to develop new oil refining capacity. And these companies also want to open vast new geographies - such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - to new exploration and drilling. Yet, they are unwilling to invest in a new fuel like ethanol that is proving to be a legitimate alternative to gasoline in countries such as Brazil.

The United States can put men on the proverbial moon, develop microprocessing chips and nanotechnology that is revolutionizing countless industries, and find cures for an untold number of previously incurable diseases. But, for some reason, we can't find a way to do what a third world country like Brazil is doing to ween itself off of carbon-based fuels and foreign energy supplies. Incredible!

The oil companies have money to burn - literally. The U.S. government is spending hundreds of billions to do...whatever the hell it's trying to do in the Middle East. But they can't find a way to fund the development of corn-based ethanol technology...in a land that is among the most agriculturally fertile in the entire world.

Corn? We have corn. Lots of it. In fact, our own government has been paying farmers for years NOT to grow crops such as corn. We're talking about complete energy self-sufficiency for this country. No more oil imports. No more being held hostage by hostile foreign governments and cartels.

Hell, even the Indy 500 will have all of its race cars running on 100% ethanol in next year's race.

Yet, based on the comments of Exxon Mobil's Tillerson, we're just plain stuck with good old oil and gas for the foreseeable future. To do otherwise is just too expensive. It's too time-consuming. It's too uneconomical.

I'll tell you what it is: IT'S INSANE!!! And it's completely unacceptable!

Political Science Theater 2006

2006-05-27T23:19:00.000-05:00

A seemingly innocuous, run-of-the-mill corruption probe of a sitting congressman all of a sudden has turned into a grand political drama and potential constitutional crisis. Funny that it took the alleged misdeeds of a Democrat in the House to elicit this kind of commotion, especially given all of the crap being pulled by Republicans in recent years.

While Rep. William Jefferson, D-Louisiana, may well have committed numerous unethical and/or illegal acts, for which he should be duly investigated and held accountable, it's hard to believe that it warrants this kind of attention. With all of the Republicans who are in trouble on the Hill, why did it take a Democrat to be the first congressman ever - EVER - to have his office raided by the FBI?

In the aftermath of the FBI's search-warrant-approved actions, the President placed a 45-day moratorium on the evidence collected until a reasonable solution can be ironed out. Seems reasonable enough, until one begins to wonder why he would take such action in apparent support of a Democrat who has been extremely critical of the Bush administration's incompetence in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Now, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller reportedly have said they will resign unless the evidence collected in the raid is reinstated. Doesn't that seem just a tad bit rash?

The entire drama playing out in Washington has the feel of being just that, a drama. With all of the attention being paid to Republican do-no-gooders in Congress over the last several months, perhaps the Bush administration decided to unleash this little spat in order to drum up some publicity - a LOT of publicity - about a troubled Democrat. With the 2006 mid-term elections just months away, the troubled Republican Party needs to turn the tide in a hurry if it has any hope whatsoever of retaining a majority in the House and Senate this fall. And what better way to turn attention away from Republican misdeeds - and there are many - than to turn a white hot spotlight on the Democrats?

Anytime you have your Attorney General and your FBI Director allegedly threatening to resign over actions taken by the President, it tends to get the media's attention. And what the media pays attention to can't help but filter down to the voters.

So, regardless of the issues involving the raid on a congressman's office, the overriding message that Republicans want to sink into the minds of the voting public is that a Democrat is being investigated for corruption. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the DoJ trots out a few more investigations of Democrats as the October elections near, if only to give a boost to Republicans' chances of retaining power. Timing is everything, as they say. If the Senate and House majorities revert to the Democrats this fall, then the shit will really hit the fan come 2007.

And won't THAT be a show worth watching? Stay tuned...

Turn out the lights, the World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party's over

2006-05-15T22:31:00.000-05:00

For decades, the annual college football matchup between the University of Florida and the University of Georgia has been known as The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party. The game takes place in Jacksonville each fall in late October or early November. Having been to several TWLOCPs myself, mostly in my college days, I can attest to the fact that the game's nickname is pretty much accurate. There's a lot of alcohol consumed.

But if the University of Georgia's president has anything to say about it, the great SEC rivalry game between the Gators and the Bulldogs never will be referred to as TWLOCP again.

University of Georgia President Michael Adams objects to the phrase "World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party" to describe the annual Georgia-Florida football game.
And he has asked CBS Television and the city of Jacksonville, Fla., to not use the phrase when promoting the game the network televises each year.

The request is part of Adams' push to curb on-campus alcohol abuse and change UGA's image as a party school.

"There are better images," Adams told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "We have requested they not use that nomenclature. The indication is they are sensitive to our concern."

As if dropping the unofficial name of the game is going to curb alcohol use or abuse, especially among college students. It won't. And I don't get the impression that either Alltel stadium or CBS will elect to cancel their sponsorship agreements with the beer companies. Of course not. After all, that would put a damper on the great sums of money to be made off the sale and marketing of alcohol.

This apparent crusade is reminiscent of the recent change in the unofficial name of the annual football game played in Dallas between the University of Texas and the University of Oklahoma. It used to be called the Red River Shootout.

That is, until the politically-correct gurus among us decided that any association with guns was bad karma. It's now called the Red River Rivalry. Ugh.

But hasn't the name change resulted in a drastic reduction in crime and illegal use of guns in Dallas and elsewhere, you ask? Uh, no.

Having spent four of the best years of my life at the University of Florida, I am confident that today's student body will not give in to the wild and crazy rantings of Georgia's president. On the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised to see The World's Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party gain even greater prominence in the years to come...if for no other reason than to spite a weeny, pencil-necked administrator from UGA.

Go Gators!

Worst. President. Ever.

2006-05-13T16:23:00.000-05:00

Now that the latest Harris poll has President Bush's approval rating dipping below 30%, can it be that much longer before he begins flirting with the legendary Mendoza Line? Since Bush allegedly understands baseball, he should be quite familiar with this infamous benchmark for futility. And with over two years left in office (shudder), Bush gives all of us plenty of time to see just how low he can go.

Mario Mendoza's legendary inability to hit a baseball in the major leagues caused his near .200 batting average to be dubbed The Mendoza Line. If the President's approval rating continues to plummet at its current rate, we could be talking about The Dubya Line before long...and Mario Mendoza finally may find peace, as his own ineptness is superseded by that of our glorious leader.

How low can he go? Stay tuned.

A president named Jeb?

2006-05-10T21:18:00.000-05:00

If President George W. Bush has his way, his younger brother and current Florida governor Jeb Bush one day will run for President of the United States.

"I would like to see Jeb run at some point in time, but I have no idea if that's his intention or not," Bush said in an interview with Florida reporters, according to a story on the St. Petersburg Times Web site.

Great. That's just what we need in this country...a Bush dynasty/monarchy. As if having a Bush in the White House for twelve out of twenty years isn't more than enough...

Of course, given Jeb Bush's status as a charter member of PNAC, it shouldn't surprise many that the neo-cons would want one of their boys to be the next person to inhabit the Oval Office. And despite what many are saying about Jeb's lack of interest in running in 2008, don't believe a word of it. He's part of the grand plan. And he most certainly will be on the Republican ticket two years from now. About the only thing that could stop it from happening is if Democrats are able to wrest control of Congress this fall and begin the investigative and/or impeachment processes to bring down the current president and his corrupt and incompetent administration. Such a scenario would spell "curtains" for any presidential aspirations that Jeb may hold.

Since Jeb's tenure as Florida governor is up later this year, he will have plenty of time on his hands to plan his campaign. And some of that time may be spent trying to figure out how to overcome two of his children's penchant for going afoul of the law. Noelle and Jebby will be popular names on the campaign trail should Jeb Sr. make it that far. Should be interesting, to say the least.

Constitutional illiterate to head CIA?

2006-05-05T22:50:00.000-05:00

Now that CIA director Porter Goss has stepped down, the scuttlebutt is that Goss's replacement will be former NSA head and Air Force General Michael Hayden. The obvious red flag with Hayden's possible appointment is that he clearly has limited familiarity with the U.S. Constitution and the Fourth Amendment, in particular.

In fact, it was just a few months ago when TDB highlighted Hayden's contention during a press conference that the Fourth Amendment did not mention probable cause. For someone in a leadership capacity over a major spy organization to be so completely ignorant of one of this country's most basic tenets of freedom is nothing short of unfathomable.

Let's refresh our collective memory about what the Fourth Amendment says:

"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, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Perhaps General Hayden should study up on the Constitution. And let's hope the U.S. Senate duly grills him on this issue before giving him rubber stamp approval to take over in Langley. Otherwise, we'll just face an ever-quickening erosion of our basic freedoms by those who are supposed to be protecting them.

Raw Story: U.S. engaged in state-sponsored terrorism in Iran

2006-04-15T19:31:00.000-05:00

While the Bush administration continues to bluster about its "global war on terror", we now are beginning to learn that they are actively supporting and employing members of a terrorist organization in Iran known as MEK, according to a report today in Raw Story.

Last Thursday, Raw Story's Larisa Alexandrovna reported (On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say) that, according to former and current intelligence officials, the Pentagon has been using a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) as an operational asset "to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack."

"[I]nstead of securing a known terrorist organization, which has been responsible for acts of terror against Iranian targets and individuals all over the world – including US civilian and military casualties – Rumsfeld under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on special ops missions into Iran to pave the way for a potential Iran strike," Larisa reported.

"They are doing whatever they want, no oversight at all,” an intelligence source told Larisa.

Larisa reported that the MEK soldiers were told to "quit" their organization and were "renamed" in accordance with a plan conceived by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld so that they could be "converted" into a military special ops team.

According to a UN official close to the Security Council whom Larisa interviewed, the "newly renamed MEK soldiers" were being employed in the place of U.S. military advance teams to commit "acts of violence in hopes of staging an insurgency of the Iranian Sunni population." (emphasis mine)

“We are already at war,” the UN official told RAW STORY.

If true, how much credibility does our government have with its "war on terror" when it is employing some of the same tactics? Is one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter?

Apparently, our leadership is comprised of hypocrites. So what else is new?

While this story is damning enough on its own, it begins to beg the broader question surrounding the original impetus for this "war on terror". If our leaders are willing to employ terrorists to further their aims in Iran, were they also willing to do so back in 2001 when a sleepy American populace was so rudely awakened by the horrible events of 9/11? Perhaps the support of attacks on other nations' citizens is a far cry from inflicting such brutality on one's own, but history tells us that it may not be so far-fetched, after all, in this country.

What will it be next? I shudder to think.

Peters' Principle on Iran

2006-04-15T16:18:00.000-05:00

Ralph Peters, author and retired military officer, penned an op-ed piece in the New York Post last weekend. In "Does Iran Want War?", Peters (pictured) attempts to convey his belief that Iran is well on its way to drawing the U.S. into a military confrontation, one that should end with Iran being pummeled unmercifully by American military might.

Aside from the fact that Peters' essay makes it seem like he's a card-carrying member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), his descriptions of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad easily could be construed as representative of President Bush, as well.

THE most dangerous error we could make in our sharpening confrontation with Iran is to convince ourselves that its leaders will act rationally. Few wars are rooted in dispassionate analysis. Self-delusion sparks most such catastrophes.

In the context of the United States' attack on Iraq, these words do ring true. Irrational self-delusion and cooked - rather than dispassionate - analysis led the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal to wage an unnecessary and costly war.

Given that historical record, what should we expect of a radical-theocrat regime that has no serious grasp of American psychology, that rules an embittered populace it longs to excite and unify, and that believes it's literally on a mission from God?

Radical-theocrat regime? An embittered populace? On a mission from God? Sound familiar?

Given the closed nature of Iran's ruling clique, it's impossible to know. The most-probable situation is that differing factions within the leadership are at different stages of willingness for war, with some ready to fight and others fearful. Cooler heads may prevail - but "cooler heads" is a relative term in Tehran.
Have the inner-circle Iranian leaders replicated yesteryear's decision-making process of Osama bin Laden and his deputies in their Afghan camps - a hothouse atmosphere in which limited evidence was processed selectively and mutual-enablers convinced each other that a few attacks on American landmarks would drive Washington into a global retreat?

Sounds eerily like the current U.S. administration and its infamously insulated President. The neo-con, PNAC crowd that wants to conquer the world has proven to be too much for most of the "cooler", diplomatic heads in Washington. Attack first and ask questions later is their modus operandi.

Limited evidence that was processed selectively? Mutual enablers convincing each other to attack? Hmmmm.

Whether or not President Ahmadinejad is a madman, he speaks like one. He has no past experience of global statecraft and no grasp of the different mental and moral structures of other civilizations. The extent to which his ability to calculate objectively has been suppressed by a psychological addiction to religious extremism remains an open question. But the portents look bleak.

If that doesn't describe President Bush to a tee, I don't know what does.

Clearly, Peters' view of Iran and its leader is not dissimilar from the reality of our own leadership. And perhaps that's where this entire situation turns grave. When you have leaders on opposite sides who display similar deficiencies of character and wisdom, the result cannot be anything but bad. Mutual megalomania infused with a dangerous elixir of religious and ideological insanity doesn't bode well for a peaceful, globally-beneficial solution.

Peters concludes his piece with a call for gruesome aggression against Iran.

If we're pulled into war, we need to strike hard and fast - before Iran's allies can make mischief in international forums. We should destroy as much of Tehran's nuclear infrastructure as possible, eliminate its air force and air defenses and wreck its naval facilities beyond repair - no matter the collateral damage. (Peters' emphasis, not mine) The madmen in Tehran must pay an unbearable price.

(snip)

But a half-hearted military response to Iranian aggression would only strengthen the confidence of our enemies and invite future confrontations.
We pulled too many punches in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and now we're paying the price. If Tehran drags us into war, we should make the conflict so devastating and painful that even our allies are stunned.

If Peters' words are, indeed, representative of current thinking within the White House and the Pentagon, then what does that say about us as a society?

It says, loud and clear, "We're doomed."

It's the civil rights struggle of the 21st century!

2006-04-12T21:51:00.000-05:00

If someone asked you to name the next, great civil rights struggle in this country, what might you guess?

Illegal immigration? Nope.

Gay marriage? I don't think so.

Abortion rights? Yeah, right.

If the Rev. Rick Scarborough (pictured) is correct, then the next civil rights struggle will center on the right of Christians to be intolerant - in some cases, overtly so - of gays and lesbians. It seems that those of a religious nature are tired of having to be nice to everyone. So, in order to legally exercise their perceived right to bash others, they are taking their fight to the courts. Would these be "activist" courts that the right spends so much of its time speaking out against?

The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all.

...

The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.

If this is the crap that the religious right is selling, then I'm not buying. Do these people not realize that they look like utter ignoramuses? They seem to be filled with so much hatred. Is that what organized religion has devolved into?

Pathetic.

Quote of the Day: "The president is revealed as the leaker-in-chief."

2006-04-06T22:35:00.000-05:00

That was House member Jane Harman (D-CA) in response to the news that Scooter Libby's disclosure of classified information in 2003 was approved by President Bush. Certainly, the President has the right to de-classify information, but it remains to be seen if he followed the proper procedures to do so in this case.

"Procedures? We don't need no stinking procedures!"

No doubt, Mr. Bush will use his well-worn rationalization, "We're at war, man!", to justify his actions. As we know all too well by now, war - or "war", as the case may be - allows the President to do anything he damn well pleases. He can cry war and, almost immediately, all laws lose their relevance when it comes to this president. Nice.

All hail our Leaker-in-Chief! (not)

"Enemies of Virtue" Triumph!

2006-04-05T21:29:00.000-05:00

Based on Tom Delay's decision to resign his House seat this week, I guess the "enemies of virtue" must have prevailed after all.

It's about time!!

Quote of the Day: "The enemies of virtue may be on the march, but they have not won..."

2006-03-29T21:34:00.000-06:00

Those were the almost laughable words of disgraced - and indicted - U.S. representative Tom Delay (R-TX), who spoke at something called the "War on Christians" conference this week. Clearly, Delay's very public fall from grace in the House has turned him into a delusional mess, lashing out at phantom "enemies" intent on destroying both him and his Christian faith.

In short, he's just lost all touch with reality.

There are those who would say Tom DeLay lost his job as House majority leader because he was indicted by a Texas grand jury on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, or because of his extensive ties to lawbreaking lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But they would be wrong.

In fact, the Texas Republican fell from power because he is a Christian.

That, at least, is the view of Rick Scarborough, convener of a conference this week called "The War on Christians."

"I believe the most damaging thing that Tom DeLay has done in his life is take his faith seriously into public office, which made him a target for all those who despise the cause of Christ," Scarborough said, introducing DeLay yesterday. When DeLay finished, the host reminded the politician: "God always does his best work right after a crucifixion."

This would seem to be an odd time to declare Christianity under siege. A Christian conservative president has just nominated two Supreme Court justices who take an expansive view of religious rights, and religious conservatives are ascendant in a Republican Party that controls both chambers of Congress.

Sadly, regardless of one's religious views, it is people like these - along with the likes of the Pat Robertsons of the world, of course - who give religion a bad name. They hide their agendas of hate and greed behind a filthy veil of virtue and piousness. Meanwhile, they take advantage of their weak-willed believers, who collectively cough up cash into the millions as they lash out at "enemies" unseen.

Of course, it's all a big political ploy that exploits religion for personal gain. Delay has done it before and he's doing it again. Apparently, the many times he's been cited in the House for ethics violations, along with his recent indictments and the conviction of close associates like Jack Abramoff, have taught Delay nothing. Once a carpetbagger always a carpetbagger, I suppose.

Delay's only true enemy of virtue seems to be staring right back at him from the mirror. Take a good look, Tom. It's not a pretty sight!

Those treacherous Russians?

2006-03-26T20:50:00.000-06:00

Why on Earth would the U.S. government publicly divulge that the Russians may have shared U.S. military intel on Iraq with Saddam Hussein before it bothered to confront the Russians about it directly?

The only logical answer is that this revelation -whether true or not - was meant solely for the public's consumption. And while some may believe this sets up an excuse for the United States' failures in Iraq, I'm not convinced that this is the sole rationale.

Given the growing intensity of the debate surrounding Iran's apparent nuclear ambitions, the Bush administration needs to paint the Russians as being untrustworthy, especially as it relates to their efforts to broker a deal that would simmer the possibility of military conflict with Iran.

Clearly, much as we saw with Iraq, the Bush administration wants to provoke conflict with Iran. It's almost "deja vu all over again", as Yogi Berra would say. By painting the Russians as being untrustworthy, it eliminates them as viable peacemakers in the public's eyes. In turn, that gives the U.S. an excuse to downplay any effort the Russians may expend to secure an agreement. And it opens the door for unilateral military action by the U.S.

The mind games continue from our glorious leadership.

Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road

2006-03-25T21:20:00.000-06:00

Two recent news items, both of which build upon previously prominent stories, are dire indicators that the United States is, indeed, under attack from within. But contrary to what many seem to believe, the attack isn't one carried out with bombs, guns or even hijacked aircraft. No, the attack is an insidious one. It's a quiet one. It's a largely unnoticed one. But it's one that may change the course of a nation thought to be the epitome of personal freedom.

The attack currently underway is built upon the premise that one man and his appointed sycophants can undo over 200 years of governmental checks and balances in order to create an autocracy that resembles the USSR far more than it does the USA.

So what are the two most recent examples of this attack?

The first was the revelation that President Bush issued another of his infamous signing statements when the revised Patriot Act legislation was enacted earlier this month. In effect, the signing statement affords the President the discretion to do whatever the hell he pleases regardless of what the law says.

The second was the DoJ's indication that the NSA's warrantless surveillance program could legally wiretap calls between doctors and their patients as well as calls between attorneys and their clients. So much for our long-held beliefs that doctor-patient confidentiality and attorney-client privilege should be among our most cherished and necessary privacy protections. This interpretation would appear to allow the government to eavesdrop on conversations taking place between a lawyer and a criminal defendant being prosecuted by that same government. Regardless of strict legalities, that's just not right.

This President and his administration are in the midst of not just defiling but destroying the very foundation of our republic. Their abuse of power and their overt willingness to break the law and subvert the Constitution are unprecedented in our nation's history. They are taking us to a place never thought possible by the majority of Americans who grew up assuming that our freedom and privacy would be protected forever.

Little by little and day by day, it becomes more and more apparent that we are - most certainly - not in Kansas anymore, Toto. But instead of landing in the merry old land of Oz, we are being led to a dark and distant land that would frighten the bloomers off of the Wicked Witch of the West. The yellow brick road, alas, is nearing a dead end.

Be afraid. Be very afraid!

When freedom turns to "fraudom"

2006-03-22T23:38:00.000-06:00

Nice to see that our newly "democratic" friends in Afghanistan understand the nuances of what is one of the United States' most cherished rights: freedom of religion.

The case of an Afghan man who could be prosecuted and even put to death for converting to Christianity has unleashed a blizzard of condemnation from the West this week and exposed a conflict in values between Afghanistan, a conservative Muslim country, and the foreign countries that have helped defend and rebuild it in the four years since the fall of the Taliban.

The case of Abdul Rahman, a longtime Christian convert who lived in Germany for years and was arrested last month in Kabul, has also highlighted the volatile debate within Afghanistan over the proper role of Islam in Afghan law and public policy as the country struggles to develop a democracy.

I guess freedom is in the eye of the beholder. Or the beheader, as the case may be.

Nice.

Bush administration says discrimination is now acceptable

2006-03-18T13:49:00.000-06:00

What happens when government power goes unchecked, as it is now with Republicans in charge of the executive, legislative and, arguably, the judicial branches? Tim Grieve from Salon.com's War Room gives us an initial glimpse of what looks like an initial salvo in a systematic plan to degrade Americans' civil rights.

Security clearances were very much in the news last year as Democrats tried, unsuccessfully, to get Karl Rove's revoked after it became clear that he had leaked Valerie Plame's identity to several reporters. But there was another security clearance story out there that didn't get so much attention: While the rest of us were worried about leaks from the White House, the White House was apparently worrying about the security risk posed by . . . homosexuals.

As the Associated Press reports, George W. Bush signed off in December on language changes in the rules for security clearances that sure seem aimed at making it easier for the government to deny clearances to gay men and lesbians. The old rules said that sexual orientation "may not be used as a basis for or a disqualifying factor in determining a person's eligibility for a security clearance." Under the new rules, a security clearance cannot be denied "solely" on the basis of sexual orientation.

A spokesman for the National Security Council tells the AP that the language change "was not intended to alter the way sexual orientation is treated." But if that's the case, why was the language changed? If the White House has an answer for that question, it's not in the AP report.

Gay advocacy groups apparently discovered the language change in a document distributed on Dec. 29, without any public fanfare, by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. So far as we know, Hadley isn't gay -- he's married with two kids -- but maybe he shouldn't have a security clearance anyway; it has been suggested that Hadley was the administration official who leaked Valerie Plame's identity to Bob Woodward and Robert Novak.

It was just a matter of time. The only question that remains: How much worse will it get?

Unchecked, absolute power in a nation rarely is a good thing. Sadly, we're about to get a lesson in just how bad it can be in this country. It won't be pretty.

Boston Legal Sticks It!

2006-03-18T00:37:00.000-06:00

On Boston Legal the other night, James Spader's wonderful character, attorney Alan Shore, delivered a closing argument that spoke volumes about what's going on in this country right now. A must read/see/listen for every American who loves this country and cannot bear to see its foundation assaulted by the very people sworn to protect it.

Watch it here.

Read it below.

Alan Shore: When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out not to be true, I expected the American people to rise up. Ha! They didn't. Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute. Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorist suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did. And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven't. In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended. There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people even seem to notice. Well, Melissa Hughes noticed. Now, you might think, instead of withholding her taxes, she could have protested the old fashioned way. Made a placard and demonstrated at a Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance, but we've lost the right to that as well. The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest. Stop for a second and try to fathom that. At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you’re wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed. This! In the United States of America. This!In the United States of America. Is Melissa Hughes the only one embarrassed? He sits down abruptly in the witness chair next to the judge.

Judge Robert Sanders: Mr. Shore. That's a chair for witnesses only.

Alan Shore: Really long speeches make me so tired sometimes.

Judge Robert Sanders: Please get out of the chair.

Alan Shore: Actually, I'm sick and tired.

Judge Robert Sanders: Get out of the chair!

Alan Shore: And what I'm most sick and tired of… He get’s up and out of the chair. …is how every time somebody disagrees with how the government is running things, he or she is labeled un-American.

D.A. Jonathan Shapiro: Evidentially, it's speech time.

Alan Shore: And speech in this country is free, you hack! Free for me, free for you. Free for Melissa Hughes to stand up to her government and say, "Stick it"!

D.A. Jonathan Shapiro: Objection!

Alan Shore: I object to government abusing its power to squash the constitutional freedoms of its citizenry. And, God forbid, anybody challenge it, they're smeared as being a heretic. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American. Melissa Hughes is an American!

Judge Robert Sanders: Mr. Shore. Unless you have anything new and fresh to say, please sit down. You've breached the decorum of my courtroom with all this hooting.

Alan Shore: Last night, I went to bed with a book. Not as much fun as a 29-year-old, but the book contained a speech by Adlai Stevenson. The year was 1952. He said, "The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live and fear breeds repression. Too often, sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to freedom of the mind are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-Communism." Today, it's the cloak of anti-terrorism. Stevenson also remarked, "It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them.”

Thanks to Boston Legal producer David E. Kelley for having the guts to say what needed to be said. And well said, it was.

Mizzou Madness, Part II

2006-03-16T22:02:00.000-06:00

A couple of weeks ago, The DrewL Bucket noted that the Missouri legislature was interested in passing a law that would make Christianity the state's official religion.

Well, if that wasn't wacky enough, now the Missouri legislature has voted to ban birth control from state-funded county health clinics. We're not talking abortion here. We're talking birth control.

The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.

"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.

That's right, not only is the "moral minority" outlawing access to birth control, but they're also trying to stamp out sexual promiscuity. Are these people on crack?!

At least some in Missouri have a clue.

Others, including some lawmakers who described themselves as "pro-life," said it was illogical for anti-abortion lawmakers to deny money for contraception to low-income people who use public health clinics.

"It's going to have the opposite effect of what the intention is, which will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions," said Rep. Kate Meiners, D-Kansas City.

The other alternative is for low-income women to give birth to more children, which is only likely to drive up the state's costs to provide services to them, said Democratic Rep. Melba Curls, also of Kansas City.

The nutty thinking of the right never ceases to amaze. They don't want people to have abortions, yet they pass laws almost ensuring that people will need to seek abortions now that they can't get access to birth control.

Perhaps the real motivation is to increase abortions, which have been declining in recent years. The right would lose a vital wedge issue if abortions were to go away. So, by banning access to birth control, they'll ensure that abortion can be an available political football for decades to come. Brilliant!

Then again, why is it that Missouri Republicans don't seem intelligent enough to have thought of that? No, I suspect they're just doing what many Republicans seem to be doing these days, namely telling others how to live their lives. Yes, that would be the Republicans who used to rail against government intrusion in people's lives. Apparently, that was just a facade.

Missouri Right to Life said it was concerned with the contraception language because it was loosely written and could have included emergency contraception - often referred to as the morning-after pill.

The Missouri Catholic Conference also opposed the birth control funding.

"State taxpayers should not be required to subsidize activities they believe are immoral or unethical, relating to contraceptives or abortions," said Larry Weber, executive director of the state Catholic Conference.

Their true colors are finally showing in the "Show Me State." And it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Television Nazis strike again

2006-03-15T21:30:00.000-06:00

The Parents Television Council - aka the Television Nazis - have struck again with their manufactured letter-writing campaigns to the FCC. And their baby-faced, Republican facilitator at the FCC, Chairman Kevin Martin, apparently agrees with the PTC's claims, based on the FCC's decision to fine numerous CBS affiliates a combined total of $3.6 million for a 2004 episode of Without A Trace.

"The number of complaints received by the commission has risen year after year," said the FCC's Martin. "I share the concerns of the public — and of parents, in particular — that are voiced in these complaints."

According to Martin, indecency complaints are way up. Gee, I wonder why?

Because the PTC consistently has sponsored letter-writing campaigns among its members and supporters, designed to provoke the FCC to take action. Are indecency complaints really more numerous or is the hullabaloo being manufactured by a very small minority of Americans?

Tyranny of the majority? Not in this case.

But it's not just the PTC that's to blame. The FCC's Martin seems to have his own ideas about controlling what appears on our televisions, based on what he said late last year.

"Parents need better and more tools to help them navigate the entertainment waters, particularly on cable and satellite TV," Martin said. "You can always turn the television off and of course block the channels you don't want, but why should you have to?"

So much for the "conservative" belief that government should have a limited role in people's lives. Today's "conservatives" want to tell all of us what to watch and not watch on television. That doesn't seem terribly American to me. Does it seem that way to you?

Feingold: The Lonesome Dem

2006-03-13T22:18:00.000-06:00

At least one Democrat in Congress has the courage to call President Bush on his illegal domestic spying activities. Too bad his colleagues have no spine.

Can nobody stand up to these criminals? What do they have to do before we see some outrage? Create another 9/11?

Kudos to Senator Feingold...and to hell with the rest of the cowards!

Feingold for President in 2008!

UPDATE: Three cheers to Molly Ivins for a brilliant statement on the state of affairs in D.C. among Democrats. She hits the nail, as usual, right on the head and drives it straight home! Read it HERE.

20-year-olds are adults, too

2006-03-12T13:00:00.000-06:00

With word that University of Oklahoma starting quarterback Rhett Bomar was cited for underage drinking at a New Orleans Hornets game in Oklahoma City on Friday night, it continues to amaze me just how many things 20-year-olds such as Bomar are allowed to do except drink alcohol.

For instance, 20-year-olds are allowed to:

Join the armed forces and die for their country...or Iraq
Vote
Drive a car
Smoke a cigarette
Have sex with another consenting adult
Get married
Become a parent
Own a home
Use a credit card
Pay taxes
Play college football so that universities, coaches and sponsors (including beer companies) can make millions of dollars and gamblers can accept millions in bets on games

Yes, a 20-year-old can do all of these things, yet he or she cannot legally drink a beer at a basketball game...or anywhere else, for that matter. We can entrust our nation's security to an 18-year-old with an M-16 but we can't entrust him or her to consume alcohol. Okay.

Meanwhile, reports of binge drinking among young adults continue to increase long after the legal drinking age was raised in most states from 18 to 21. Does it take a rocket scientist to understand that the illegality of alcohol consumption by young adults simply augments the high they get from drinking?

Let's start treating adults like adults, regardless of the activity in question. It's amazing how young people can begin to act like adults as soon as we stop treating them like children.

Father to Son: Join GOP or pay for college

2006-03-11T11:21:00.000-06:00

A Highland Park, Texas, man has instructed his 17-year-old son to become a member of the Republican party if he wants his father to pay for his college education. The son, an avowed Democrat, has sworn not to give in to his father's demands.

Highland Park isn't exactly a slum. In fact, it's one of the wealthiest suburbs in the United States, chock full of multi-million dollar homes. Affording his son's college tuition isn't the issue. It's all about political ideology.

So, instead of relying on his father for his college tuition, Teddy Gambordella has embarked on a scheme to finance his own education via the Internet. Good for him.

Blood may be thicker than water, but does it trump political allegiance?

Not for the father and son duo of Ted and Teddy Gambordella.

Ted Gambordella dislikes the idea that his only son, a Highland Park High junior, is a Democrat. He loathes it so much that he has flat-out refused to pay for his son's college education unless he becomes a Republican.

"Yeah, I'm serious," said Mr. Gambordella, a 57-year-old martial arts expert. "He's got to earn his own way."

That suits Teddy just fine.

The 17-year-old said there's no way he'll switch to the GOP just to get his father's financial backing. He recently started a Web site – onemillionreasonswhy.com – to raise money for college.

"It's not about the money," said Teddy, who spent two years wrestling for W.T. White High before joining Highland Park's team last fall. "It's about spreading knowledge about Bush and his administration and proving my dad wrong. It's more of a principle thing."

The premise is similar to milliondollarhomepage.com, started by a 21-year-old Brit in August to pay for college.

Supporters purchase pixels – dots on a computer screen – as advertising space.

The pixels cost $1 a pop, with a minimum purchase of 100.

With just 10,200 out of a million pixels sold, Teddy has a long way to go.

Amaya Smith, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, couldn't resist using Teddy's story to take a shot at the White House.

"If he doesn't get money from his parents, he's going to need to raise it on the Internet because he's not going to get it from this administration," Ms. Smith said. "Republicans in Congress have cut more than $12 billion in student aid."

Ken Fairchild, acting executive director of the Dallas County Republican Party, said Democrats give the same response to everything. "Blame it on Washington," he said, chuckling.

Mr. Fairchild said that while he admires Teddy's initiative, he's sorry that he has been brainwashed into supporting the Dems.

"I would urge him to listen to his parents," Mr. Fairchild said.

Not going to happen, says Teddy.

"I don't see him changing my mind," he said, seated next to his dad, who shook his head and rolled his eyes. "I see me changing his mind. It's easy to come up with a million reasons" to dislike President Bush.

Mr. Gambordella countered that he was liberal in college. Now the martial arts instructor and author listens to Rush Limbaugh daily and backs Republicans with his pocketbook and at the ballot box.

Though Teddy admits he's new to the political scene, it's something he wants to stick with.

He went to a Dallas County Young Democrats meeting in mid-January and attended a Young Democrats meeting at Highland Park High School last week. He said it was cool to hang out with people who see the world the way he does.

"They weren't crazy like my dad tries to make me believe," he said.

Jeff Barrows, sponsor of the Young Democrats club, isn't surprised to hear about Teddy's online venture.

"He is an entrepreneurial spirit," Mr. Barrows said. "He's one of those guys where if the solution lies within his reach, he's going to go for it."

Debra Gambordella, also a Republican, supports both her son and husband but doesn't want to get into the scuffle. She says becoming a Democrat is a better way to rebel than drinking or doing drugs.

Mr. Gambordella said he may not agree with his son's politics, but he's proud that Teddy is showing initiative. He hopes Teddy's site kick-starts some "intelligent" discussions.

"Democrats are too extreme. If they had some moderate voices," Mr. Gambordella said, his voice trailing off as Teddy's eyes rolled back into his head.

"I could be that voice," the teen suddenly chimed in.

His father chuckled and shook his head.

"He'll grow out of it."

Here's hoping Teddy doesn't "grow out of it." Mr. Gambordella Sr. listens regularly to Rush Limbaugh, yet he thinks Democrats "are too extreme?" Please!

Spreading fear far and wide

2006-03-10T21:41:00.000-06:00

Headline tonight on ESPN.com:

FBI warns of possible terror threat at sports events

First sentence of story (emphasis mine):

The FBI said Friday there is no specific, credible threat of a terror attack aimed at college basketball arenas or other sports stadiums but acknowledged alerting law enforcement to a recent Internet posting discussing such attacks.

What else is there to say? I just don't get it.

Bush: I'm worried by message sent by failed port deal

2006-03-10T15:46:00.000-06:00

So, Bush is worried Arab nations will be disturbed that Congress and U.S. public opinion didn't support the DP World port management deal.

President Bush said Friday he was concerned about the "broader message" that the failed port operation deal with a United Arab Emirates company sends to other Arab allies in the U.S. war on terrorism.
"In order to win the war on terror, we've got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East," Bush told a meeting of the National Newspaper Association in Washington.

Is President Bush really as ignorant as his statements make him out to be? For crying out loud, the past four-plus years have been nothing but fear, fear, fear, terror, terror, terror, war, war, war almost non-stop. In fact, he's banked his entire presidency on such fears ever since 9/11/01. And despite Bush's bold predictions that he would bring al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden "to justice", the truth is that OBL hasn't been caught.

Should Bush really be surprised that people in the United States cast a wary eye toward having a UAE-owned company controlling major U.S. ports? If he is surprised by the reaction, then he has nobody to blame but himself and his neo-con co-horts. They've fanned the flames of fear more than anyone when it comes to U.S. perceptions of Arabs and Muslims.

Come join Bush's "He-man Muslim Haters" Club

2006-03-09T12:13:00.000-06:00

Based on a new poll from the WaPo and ABC News, more Americans today have a negative impression of Islam than they did shortly after the attacks of 9/11/01.

As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll found that nearly half of Americans -- 46 percent -- have a negative view of Islam, seven percentage points higher than in the tense months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Muslims were often targeted for violence.

Well, it seems that the Bush administration and its neo-con/PNAC core are getting just the results they want in order to sustain "The Long War" that they've so desired. You can't justify substantial military expenditures and far-flung engagements without an enemy. And as long as the American people believe that Muslims are the enemy, then the neo-cons can continue to push for their dream of "American global leadership".

Isn't it ironic that it's now the Bush administration that's complaining because Americans are concerned about the DP World port management deal? Assuming that the deal is on the up-and-up, Bush and company should be reminded of an old adage: You reap what you sow.

And, isn't it a sad state of affairs when "a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence"? Maybe it's just me, but I seem to recall at least a few instances in the history of mankind in which Christians did, um, just a bit of killing. Which reminds me of another old adage...something about throwing stones from glass houses.

Sad.

This Democrat makes most Republicans seem downright liberal

2006-03-08T22:24:00.000-06:00

How's this for a Democratic platform in Ohio's U.S. Senate race?

Make homosexual behavior punishable by death
Defend the Second Amendment
Secure U.S. borders
Lower taxes
Allow prayer in public schools
Convert Muslims to Christianity
Refute evolution
Oppose the U.N.
Oppose abortion
Deny global warming

Believe it or not, that's exactly the agenda on which Democratic Senate candidate Merrill Keiser, Jr. is running in his attempt to unseat incumbent Senator Mike DeWine.

Keiser, 61, says he's running as a Democrat because that's how he was registered the last time he voted.

The trucker, who hails from Fremont, Ohio, says there needs to be more adherence to biblical values in government, business and education – something he claims DeWine is not promoting.

"I believe that the United States has been moved in a Godless direction by the courts," he told the Sandusky Register. "To get good men on the court, we need good senators."

With Democrats like Keiser, who needs Republicans?!

DP World a red herring?

2006-03-08T18:15:00.000-06:00

The more we get into this port security issue surrounding DP World, the more I begin to wonder if it's nothing but a red herring designed to prop up the beleaguered Republican members of Congress.

There's no question that President Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet right now, and the remaining 2-3 years of his administration portend little more than lame duckiness. He can't run for President again, but he can "take one for the team" by helping to improve the odds that Republicans in Congress can hold onto their seemingly tenuous majority status. Recent ethics violations - not to mention indictments and convictions - among Republicans have given Democratic challengers a wide berth in their effort to re-gain seats in the House and Senate.

The DP World purchase of a UK company responsible for operating several major U.S. ports has allowed Republicans in Congress to appear tough on national security and willing to challenge a President who is more reviled than liked at the moment. Sure, Democrats can appear equally tough on the issue, but what the Republican Party is interested in is retaining its majority status. If Republicans can get away from the ethics issues, in particular, and focus on their tough stance on security, then they have a message that plays well with their constituents in an election year. It also allows Republicans to distance themselves from an unpopular president as they hope to avoid being dragged down by Bush's myriad problems.

Time will tell if there's anything to this, but the entire episode appears just a bit too choreographed to have happened by chance. Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election. But if Democrats were to take back the House and/or Senate this fall, he would have to worry about a lot of other things.

FEMA kills $17 million morgue after just 10 weeks

2006-03-07T15:01:00.000-06:00

It's so nice to see that our federal government is spending our hard-earned tax dollars wisely.

The latest example of government financial ineptitude comes to light in hurricane-ravaged Louisiana, where FEMA's state-of-the-art, $17 million morgue is being shut down after a mere ten weeks in operation.

The morgue, which can decontaminate and examine 150 bodies a day and has living space for nearly 500 workers, is closing because the number of bodies coming in has dwindled to about one a week, said Chuck Smith, a FEMA official.

Smith said Tuesday the morgue had been developed when officials believed there would be 5,000 deaths. Instead, there have been about 1,300 in Louisiana so far and it was apparent within a few weeks of the hurricane that the number of deaths would be 1,000 to 2,000.

"It is the Taj Mahal of forensic science; it is a beautiful place," said Frank Minyard, the New Orleans coroner. "But by the time we moved there we were finished with all the autopsies."

The sheer magnitude of wasted spending by this administration's incompetent cronies is almost beyond belief. If just a fraction of that money had gone toward saving lives and providing necessary food, shelter and care to those in need during Hurricane Katrina, much of the post-hurricane spending would have been unnecessary.

No one seemed to know what would happen to the 70,000-square-foot, or 6,500-square-meter, building that housed the morgue, built from the ground up on private land belonging to Bear Industries, a construction supply company.

In addition to the morgue, a warehouse, and rows of never-used cubicles, it included a cafeteria and fitness center.

Sounds like quite the facility. Who knew dead people needed to exercise?!

Definition of PATHETIC

2006-03-06T13:42:00.000-06:00

Here is the definition of PATHETIC, as defined by the state of South Dakota:

The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest.

Governor Mike Rounds signed the legislation today, effectively saying that South Dakota women no longer may make their own choices about their bodies, and compromising the ability of medical professionals to treat their patients as they see fit.

A sad day for the state of South Dakota and for those who believe that the government should not dictate how people choose to live their lives.

Pathetic, indeed.

Mizzou Madness

2006-03-05T00:04:00.000-06:00

Apparently, the Missouri legislature is considering a resolution that would make Christianity the state's official majority religion, according to a report by KMOV, Channel 4 in St. Louis.

Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.

House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is (sic) pending in the state legislature.

Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday.

Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution.

The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."

State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone.

KMOV also contacted Gov. Matt Blunt's office to see where he stands on the resolution, but he has yet to respond.

I have just one question: On what freaking planet do these loons live?

Quote of the Day: "Now, it appears that the crisis has passed."

2006-03-03T11:45:00.000-06:00

Those were the brilliant words of General George Casey, the United States' top military commander in Iraq. He uttered them today, barely twenty-four hours after attacks in Iraq claimed 58 lives, which followed several days of additional attacks and killings that followed the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra.

It's just kind of amusing that such a short respite - if, indeed, there has been a respite - from the violence would spur someone to claim that "the crisis has passed."

Something tells me that crisis situations in Iraq are kind of like the weather in Texas: wait a minute and things will change.

Casey continued with his assessment of the situation.

"But we all should be clear: Iraqis remain under threat of terrorist attack by those who will stop at nothing to undermine the formation of the constitutionally elected government."
He added, "I think it's safe to say that a major attack, particularly on a religious site, would have a significant impact on the situation here coming in the next couple of days."

Hmmm. That doesn't sound so much like the crisis has passed. It sounds more like everyday life in Iraq. I suppose optimism in Iraq doesn't require a "glass is half full" perspective. Just a tiny drop in that glass may offer optimism enough. And sometimes, one even has to pay for that much optimism.

Sad.

Catch 22: Torture banned at Gitmo, but law can't be enforced there

2006-03-02T23:35:00.000-06:00

The good news: Detainees at Guantanamo Bay cannot be tortured under the provisions of Sen. John McCain's recent legislation banning torture.

The bad news: That law cannot be enforced at Gitmo because of a provision in the same law that bans access to the U.S. court system for detainees at Gitmo unless it is to appeal their enemy combatant status determinations and convictions by military commissions.

Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.

In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."

Government lawyers have argued that another portion of that same law, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, removes general access to U.S. courts for all Guantanamo Bay captives. Therefore, they said, Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni national held since May 2002, cannot claim protection under the anti-torture provisions.

(snip)

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said in a hearing yesterday that she found allegations of aggressive U.S. military tactics used to break the detainee hunger strike "extremely disturbing" and possibly against U.S. and international law. But Justice Department lawyers argued that even if the tactics were considered in violation of McCain's language, detainees at Guantanamo would have no recourse to challenge them in court.

So, even if someone at Gitmo is tortured, that person has no legal remedy available either to report it or to stop it. And while that seems ludicrous to most observers, even critics agree that nothing short of new legislation can change the situation.

"Unfortunately, I think the government's right; it's a correct reading of the law," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "The law says you can't torture detainees at Guantanamo, but it also says you can't enforce that law in the courts."

Thomas Wilner, a lawyer representing several detainees at Guantanamo, agreed that the law cannot be enforced. "This is what Guantanamo was about to begin with, a place to keep detainees out of the U.S. precisely so they can say they can't go to court," Wilner said.

So, it looks like torture is out...that is, unless the detainee is at Gitmo or the President says it's a matter of national security. And we all know that the President is a man of his word, right?

So much for the ballyhooed anti-torture legislation.

Ain't it great to be an American? Ugh.

Quote of the Day: “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.”

2006-03-02T12:26:00.000-06:00

Okay, so it's an old quote from last August, but it's destined to become a timeless classic in the annals of the American presidency. Especially now that a new video has been released confirming that the President was, in fact, briefed on the impending danger to New Orleans' levees a full day before Hurricane Katrina hit the Crescent City.

So, as we've seen before and, no doubt, as we will see again, President Bush seems to have no problem with lying to the American people. His statement, two days after Katrina hit, claiming that nobody anticipated the breach in the levees was just that: a lie! Of course people anticipated it. And he knew it.

President Bush is a liar, plain and simple. Sure, President Clinton lied about a personal relationship that was nobody's business but his and his family's. Tragically, though, President Bush's lies actually have resulted in the deaths of countless people around the world. In Iraq. In New Orleans. And who knows where else?

Impeachment? Nah, that's too civil for this liar. He belongs in prison. Close the cell door and throw away the key. He's nothing short of a disgrace and an embarassment.

Bush's lexicon of lingo lives on

2006-03-01T11:55:00.000-06:00

President Bush, in his surprise visit to Afghanistan today, was asked a question about Osama bin Laden. Not surprisingly, his response was riddled with the same old buzzwords and catch-phrases we've been hearing from him for the last four years. This really is beginning to sound like a broken record.

Q: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, there was a time when you talked about getting Osama bin Laden dead or alive. Why is he still on the loose five years later? And are you still confident that you'll get him?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I am confident he will be brought to justice. What's happening is, is that we got U.S. forces on the hunt for not only bin Laden, but anybody who plots and plans with bin Laden. There are Afghan forces on the hunt for not only bin Laden, but those who plot and plan with him. We've got Pakistan forces on the hunt. And part of my message to President Musharraf is, is that it's important that we bring these people to justice. He understands that. After all, they've tried to kill him four times. So we've got a common alliance, all aimed at routing out people who are evildoers, people who have hijacked a great religion and kill innocent people in the name of that religion.

We're making progress of dismantling al Qaeda. Slowly but surely, we're bringing the people to justice, and the world is better for it, as a result of our steady progress.

"What's happening is, is that we got U.S. forces on the hunt..." Nice grammar, Dubya.

Nothing but the same old rhetoric from the same old, grammatically-challenged dimwit. Way to go, Duh-bya.

What an embarassment.

What the Fukuyama?! A noted neo-conservative changes his stripes

2006-03-01T10:01:00.000-06:00

One of the original members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and a noted neo-conservative, Francis Fukuyama, recently renounced his neo-conservative ties in a New York Times Magazine essay. In essence, Fukuyama says that the original foundation for neo-conservativism devolved into an overly militaristic and interventionist approach by the Bush administration and its neo-con idealists.

"Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."

Fukuyama even goes so far as to equate today's neo-conservative doctrine as "Leninist" in its belief that "history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will." He says that their idealistic view of the U.S. as a benevolent hegemon has turned into fantasy as the harsh realities of the Iraq War, in particular, continue to reflect the pitfalls of such forceful advocacy of democracy.

The Failure of Benevolent Hegemony
The Bush administration and its neoconservative supporters did not simply underestimate the difficulty of bringing about congenial political outcomes in places like Iraq; they also misunderstood the way the world would react to the use of American power. Of course, the cold war was replete with instances of what the foreign policy analyst Stephen Sestanovich calls American maximalism, wherein Washington acted first and sought legitimacy and support from its allies only after the fact. But in the post-cold-war period, the structural situation of world politics changed in ways that made this kind of exercise of power much more problematic in the eyes of even close allies. After the fall of the Soviet Union, various neoconservative authors like Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol and Robert Kagan suggested that the United States would use its margin of power to exert a kind of ''benevolent hegemony'' over the rest of the world, fixing problems like rogue states with W.M.D., human rights abuses and terrorist threats as they came up. Writing before the Iraq war, Kristol and Kagan considered whether this posture would provoke resistance from the rest of the world, and concluded, ''It is precisely because American foreign policy is infused with an unusually high degree of morality that other nations find they have less to fear from its otherwise daunting power.'' (Italics added.)

It is hard to read these lines without irony in the wake of the global reaction to the Iraq war, which succeeded in uniting much of the world in a frenzy of anti-Americanism. The idea that the United States is a hegemon more benevolent than most is not an absurd one, but there were warning signs that things had changed in America's relationship to the world long before the start of the Iraq war. The structural imbalance in global power had grown enormous. America surpassed the rest of the world in every dimension of power by an unprecedented margin, with its defense spending nearly equal to that of the rest of the world combined. Already during the Clinton years, American economic hegemony had generated enormous hostility to an American-dominated process of globalization, frequently on the part of close democratic allies who thought the United States was seeking to impose its antistatist social model on them.

There were other reasons as well why the world did not accept American benevolent hegemony. In the first place, it was premised on American exceptionalism, the idea that America could use its power in instances where others could not because it was more virtuous than other countries. The doctrine of pre-emption against terrorist threats contained in the 2002 National Security Strategy was one that could not safely be generalized through the international system; America would be the first country to object if Russia, China, India or France declared a similar right of unilateral action. The United States was seeking to pass judgment on others while being unwilling to have its own conduct questioned in places like the International Criminal Court.

Another problem with benevolent hegemony was domestic. There are sharp limits to the American people's attention to foreign affairs and willingness to finance projects overseas that do not have clear benefits to American interests. Sept. 11 changed that calculus in many ways, providing popular support for two wars in the Middle East and large increases in defense spending. But the durability of the support is uncertain: although most Americans want to do what is necessary to make the project of rebuilding Iraq succeed, the aftermath of the invasion did not increase the public appetite for further costly interventions. Americans are not, at heart, an imperial people. Even benevolent hegemons sometimes have to act ruthlessly, and they need a staying power that does not come easily to people who are reasonably content with their own lives and society.

Finally, benevolent hegemony presumed that the hegemon was not only well intentioned but competent as well. Much of the criticism of the Iraq intervention from Europeans and others was not based on a normative case that the United States was not getting authorization from the United Nations Security Council, but rather on the belief that it had not made an adequate case for invading Iraq in the first place and didn't know what it was doing in trying to democratize Iraq. In this, the critics were unfortunately quite prescient.
The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism. Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally. The misjudgment was based in part on the massive failure of the American intelligence community to correctly assess the state of Iraq's W.M.D. programs before the war. But the intelligence community never took nearly as alarmist a view of the terrorist/W.M.D. threat as the war's supporters did. Overestimation of this threat was then used to justify the elevation of preventive war to the centerpiece of a new security strategy, as well as a whole series of measures that infringed on civil liberties, from detention policy to domestic eavesdropping.

Interestingly, the neo-cons of PNAC argued in September of 2000 that the United States needed to drastically increase military spending in order to better position itself for "American global leadership." In fact, PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses was, in many ways, a blueprint for ensuring the United States' own global pre-eminence and dominance in the 21st century.

That's why Fukuyama's confusion about the neo-con rush to war is a bit odd. After all, a reading of Rebuilding America's Defenses should have left little doubt that the build up and flexing of U.S. military muscle - and the enormous expenditures that go along with it - was central to the PNAC agenda. And to read Fukuyama's essay, one can't help but wonder if he's truly changed his stripes or if there's a more tacit agenda at work. Clearly, he is distancing himself from his neo-con brethren, but for what purpose? And at what price?

One would hope that Fukuyama's essay is nothing less than an open admission that the neo-con agenda is beginning to exhibit cracks in its foundation. And while it's encouraging to see that at least one noted neo-con - apparently - is viewing the world with a bit more realism, I won't be convinced that neo-conservativism in its present form is dead until we hear similar contrition from other, more prominent neo-cons.

Something tells me we may be waiting a while for that to happen.

"I thought it was going to help," Bush said.

2006-02-28T15:29:00.000-06:00

So, President Bush now admits that Osama bin Laden's late cameo appearance in the 2004 Presidential campaign actually helped him win re-election, according to a new book by Bill Sammon, Strategery.

"What does it mean? Is it going to help? Is it going to hurt?" Bush told Sammon of the bin Laden tapes.

"Anything that drops in at the end of a campaign that is not already decided creates all kinds of anxieties, because you're not sure of the effect.

"I thought it was going to help," Bush said.

"I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn't want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush."

Just one more reason why many believe that bin Laden long has been a convenient tool of the Bushes and the neo-conservative set. Bush's comments to Sammon would appear to hammer that point straight home.

Captions, Anyone???

2006-02-28T10:59:00.000-06:00

President Bush met today with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

What, if anything, is Dubya thinking as he gazes fondly at the Prime Minister in the photo above?

I'll get it started:

"I wonder if it's true that Italian men with big noses also have big..."

New WTC security plan: No planes allowed!

2006-02-26T18:49:00.000-06:00

Apparently, the new World Trade Center complex to be built in New York City will employ some of the most sophisticated security technology available.

Visitors to the complex that eventually will fill the World Trade Center site might have to submit to iris scans or thumb print analysis to get into buildings, while smart cameras try to match their faces to a photo database of known terrorists. Well-paid armed guards would be on patrol and sensors would test the air for lethal gases.

Sounds like they're going to make the new development more secure than Fort Knox. And I can't wait to see the force-field and surface-to-air missiles they deploy to keep jumbo jets from crashing into it!

All of the whiz bang, techno-security gadgets are fine and dandy, but the plan seems to go just a tad overboard. I mean, it wasn't as though the original WTC was infiltrated and attacked by scores of masked terrorists who would have been thwarted by iris scans and other biometric devices.

For crying out loud, they flew planes into the buildings!!

I think it would be difficult to do an iris scan on the pilot of a rogue aircraft as it approaches a building, and then have a computerized voice reply, "Your identity is not a match. Please stop your vehicle at once."

Can you say, "Overkill?"

State of confusion: Utah wants fewer videos, more guns for kids

2006-02-24T09:43:00.000-06:00

It seems that the residents of Utah are in a state of confusion about what constitutes danger to their children. While the state legislature is about to make it a felony for an adult to provide a minor with a violent video game, it also is about to lower the hunting age in Utah from 14 to 12.

In addition, state lawmakers want to eliminate the minimum age altogether for hunting turkey and small game. Does quail qualify as small game? Perhaps the Vice President can take his young grandchildren hunting in Utah next time he's in the mood for a little shootin'. Every young'un needs a good peppering every now and then, after all.

While I'm not one to believe that some of the violent video games on the market today are necessarily appropriate for children, that decision should be left to parents to make. And it seems just a bit whacky that they want to eliminate the chance that a child can kill a fake person with a fake gun, but enhance the possibility that he or she can kill a real person with a real gun.

HB257, which passed 56-8, would add extremely violent "interactive video or electronic" games to the state's statute protecting minors from harmful material; the statute is commonly used to prosecute those who provide pornography to children.

To violate the terms of the legislation, a violent video game would have to be "patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community" and lack any serious "literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

Rep. Scott Wyatt, R-Logan, said such a tough standard means only the most depraved video games would fall under this bill.

Patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, eh? In Utah, I guess that means Spongebob Squarepants is out.

Luckily, at least some in Utah appear to have the right perspective on this.

(A) few lawmakers, including Orem Republican Margaret Dayton and Salt Lake City Democrat Ross Romero, questioned HB257's constitutionality.

Dayton said the bill was "frustrating." She dislikes such video games but said violence has certain constitutional protections that pornography does not have.

"That's why we can have pictures in the Bible, battle scenes or war movies," she said.

Romero also didn't like the fact the bill could land a parent in jail for two weeks, if they buy an extremely violent video game for their child.

But that doesn't seem to matter to Rep. David Hogue, R-Riverton.

"It will set an example that Utah is a family state," he said.

Sending parents to jail for letting their kids play a video game while encouraging younger kids to head out into public with shotguns. Now there are some real family values for you!

(Thanks to The DrewL Bucket's official Utah social and political correspondent, Charlie E - no relation to Sheila E, as far as I know - for contributing to this report.)

DP World deal includes odd concessions

2006-02-22T22:36:00.000-06:00

According to the AP, the deal that would allow Dubai-based DP World to take over the operation of six major U.S. ports contains several concessions that may limit access to the company's U.S. business records.

The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.

As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.

The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.

Does the deal potentially shield DP World from legal action in the U.S.? Are there other records of a, shall we say, compromising nature that would not be accessible, if necessary?

This sweet deal brokered by the Bush administration seems to get more and more dubious by the day. Links to two key Bush administration members already are raising some eyebrows in Washington and elsewhere.

Three Stooges: Larry, Curly and Mohammad

2006-02-21T22:39:00.000-06:00

Earlier today the feds announced they've indicted three men from Toledo, Ohio, on charges relating to terrorism. Apparently, they were attempting to plan attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.

Is it just me, or does this indictment seem just a bit odd? I mean, there seem to be more than enough bombs - or IEDs - going off in Iraq on a daily basis; wouldn't it be more effective to plan attacks elsewhere?

However, according to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, the indictment sends an important message to us all.

"This case stands as a reminder of the need for continued vigilance in the war on terrorism."

He's got that right. It's no secret that the White House is constantly looking for ways to remind us about the menacing terrorist element lurking in the shadows. Or in Toledo, Ohio.

And speaking of Toledo...any chance that the White House is trying to shift the focus of Ohioans from the scourge of Republican ethics lapses in that state back to the more critical, fear-based messages of terror and war? Ohio Republicans are on the run. No doubt Ohio's voting population needed a collective slap about the face to get them back into the mode of fear, fear, fear.

Elements of this story - especially given the Bush administration's penchant for, well, lying - just don't seem to add up.

The indictment does not specify if any attacks were imminent but says the suspects recruited others as early as November 2004 to train for a violent holy war against the United States and its allies in Iraq.

Okay. But if you want to unleash a holy war against the United States, why go all the way to Iraq to do it when you're already smack dab in the midst of your supposed enemy? Do you really need to travel to Fallujah when a few bombs exploding in Cleveland would do? I mean, bombs exploding in Fallujah would get lost in the news of the day, while a few IEDs detonating in the "Mistake by the Lake" would be front page news nationwide. But I digress...

Two of the men discussed plans to practice setting off explosives on July 4, 2005, so that the bombs would not be noticed, the indictment alleges. It's not clear if the suspects went through with those plans.

Last time I checked, buying bombs to explode on Independence Day is the American way, especially in the heartland and the south - aka the Red States - where a fireworks stand is always within an easy 5 minute drive. Nothing unusual there.

The indictment says the group also traveled together to a shooting range to practice shooting guns and studied how to make explosives.

Well, unlike our very own Vice President, at least they realized their need for some practice before unleashing their firearm skills on the world. I'm sure the NRA is pleased to know that their elected right wing administration considers shooting range participation akin to terrorist training activity.

It also alleges that at least one of the men researched and solicited funding for the training, including getting unspecified government grants and private sponsors. The indictment does not say which government or name any potential sponsors.

Government grants? Wouldn't it be ironic if it were our own government that bankrolled this lot? Nothing would surprise me when talking about this "Charlie Brown" - er, Michael Brown - administration.

Amawi is accused of twice threatening in conversations to kill or injure Bush. He also is charged with distributing information about the making and use of an explosive device.

The others are Marwan Othman El-Hindi, 42, a U.S. citizen born in Jordan; and Wassim I. Mazloum, 24, who came to the U.S. from Lebanon in 2000,

Mazloum operated a car business in Toledo with his brother. The indictment accuses him of offering to use his dealership as a cover for traveling to and from Iraq so that he could learn how to build small explosives using household materials.

Firstly, what conversations were these? Were they recorded under a warrant or without a warrant? I'd be willing to bet dollars-to-donuts that this whole affair is being thrown into the public domain in order to justify the warrantless spying program.

"See. We're catching real, live terrorists with this program. It works. Now, shut up!" I can hear it now.

Secondly, do they really need to travel to and from Iraq to learn how to build small explosives using household materials?

Hello! That's what the Internet is for!!

I just find this whole case to be lacking. That is, either the alleged terrorists are seriously lacking brains...or the Bush administration is completely lacking any shred of integrity in what looks like a complete sham of an indictment.

After all, why should any of us believe anything that this crooked administration does or says anymore? It just seems to be more of the same old smoke being blown up our collective ass. Marwan, Wassim and Mohammad seem to be nothing more than three stooges in the Bushies' ongoing attempt to foment fear and uncertainty among the populace. And it's likely to get more and more brazen as the November mid-term elections approach.

The only other question I have about this case: Where's Shemp?

No square to spare? Look out!

2006-02-21T17:18:00.000-06:00

I've heard of some really stupid acts in my time, but this one has to rank right up there among the dumbest of all time.

A Florida man has been accused of fatally beating his roommate with a sledgehammer and a claw hammer because there was no toilet paper in their home.
Franklin Crow, 56, was charged Monday with homicide in the death of Kenneth Matthews, 58, according to the Marion County Sheriff's Office. Capt. Thomas Bibb said Crow initially denied his involvement, but confessed during questioning.

Yes, that's right. A man's life was snuffed because his roommate couldn't deal with a lack of toilet paper. Somewhere, Mr. Whipple is looking down with a knowing grin on his face. A man's gotta have his Charmin, after all.

But the perp in this case didn't just kill his roommate. No. He bashed his head in so badly that his identity had to be confirmed through fingerprinting.

Now that's some serious toilet paper rage. Must have been a five-wiper!

ShotgunGate: There were "guides"?

2006-02-19T23:36:00.000-06:00

Interesting article in Newsweek that discusses last weekend's infamous shooting in south Texas as well as the broader strangeness that is Dick Cheney. But one passage about the shooting, in particular, caught my eye:

It was late afternoon, and the hunters were ready to call it a day. Harry Whittington, a prominent Austin lawyer and big-time GOP donor, had bagged two birds with two shots. "Great shot, Harry, you got a double!" called out Katharine. While Whittington went off with his dog and his guides to find the dead birds, Cheney and Pam Willeford, the U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein and another major GOP donor, went ahead to look for another covey of birds. Cheney spotted a bird flying behind him, swung around with his Italian-made 28-gauge shotgun toward the setting sun and pulled the trigger. Whittington, wearing a regulation orange vest, was approaching out of a slight gully, some 30 yards away.

This is the first I've heard that there were hunting guides along with the three-person hunting group that included Dick Cheney, Harry Whittington and Ambassador Pamela Willeford. And it sounds as though the guides - plural - went with Whittington.

So, did that leave any additional guides with Cheney and Willeford? Were they left alone at that point? Why would more than one guide accompany Whittington while, apparently, leaving Cheney and Willeford by themselves? And what were the guides doing when Whittington attempted to re-join Cheney and Willeford? Have these guides been interviewed by law enforcement officials to get their side of the story?

So many questions.

Every other story I have read led me to believe that Cheney, Whittington and Willeford were on their own in the brush, that the nearest witnesses were located in a vehicle about a hundred yards away. But now there seems to be a casual mention of "guides" in the Newsweek story.

Additionally, if Whittington was with "his dog and his guides", how the hell could two people - Cheney and Willeford - not have heard at least three people and a dog approaching through the brush at a distance of just 30 yards? Were their senses dulled by something? Were they otherwise pre-occupied?

As more clues come out on this episode, it becomes more apparent that this may not have been "just" a hunting accident.

How dependent is the U.S. on Persian Gulf oil? Not so much

2006-02-16T11:05:00.000-06:00

On The Daily Show the other night, Jon Stewart's guest was Peter Tertzakian, author of a recently published book entitled, A Thousand Barrels a Second. Obviously, the topic of oil and gas is a somewhat timely one given the events of the last few years, including war in the Middle East, hurricanes hitting the U.S. and gasoline price spikes around the world.

Tertzakian is a Canadian and an expert on the oil and gas industry, having worked eight years for Chevron Corporation and then going on to success as an energy industry investment analyst. Currently, he is Chief Energy Economist and Director of ARC Financial Corporation, one of the world's leading private equity firms focused on energy.

In short, he knows his stuff.

But what really caught my attention was when Stewart asked Tertzakian: From which country does the United States acquire the largest percentage of its imported oil? And Stewart acknowledged - as I think most of us would - that the answer shocked him.

The country?

Canada.

Really?

Really.

As Stewart said, he assumed the answer would be Saudi Arabia or, perhaps, Iran or Iraq. Nope. And I would venture to guess that well over 90% of the U.S. population, when asked that same question, would assume the answer would be a country in the Persian Gulf. Again, nope.

It seems that, whenever the discussion turns to oil and gas, most everyone assumes that our dependency on foreign oil - our addiction, if you will - is tied directly to the Middle East and the murder and mayhem constantly taking place there. But as we learned from the recent discussion between Stewart and Tertzakian, that assumption is completely false.

My interest sufficiently piqued, I decided to do a little follow-up research on the web. After uncovering some official import statistics from the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration web site, I found what I was looking for:

Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries) (Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country	Dec-05	Nov-05	YTD 2005	Dec-04	Jan - Dec 2004

CANADA	1,892	1,776	1,642	1,556	1,616
MEXICO	1,707	1,658	1,550	1,552	1,598
SAUDI ARABIA	1,438	1,267	1,438	1,449	1,495
VENEZUELA	1,183	1,009	1,231	1,379	1,297
NIGERIA	1,174	1,163	1,060	1,006	1,078
ANGOLA	425	641	450	306	306
IRAQ	390	572	520	626	655
ECUADOR	340	264	276	261	232
KUWAIT	268	273	215	205	241
ALGERIA	212	265	228	199	215
BRAZIL	159	65	94	0	51
GABON	139	66	127	233	142
COLOMBIA	135	281	156	135	142
NORWAY	66	103	119	63	143
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO	62	70	62	22	49

Sure enough, we import the most crude oil from our neighbors to the north. In fact, approximately 36% of our imports come from our two North American neighbors and top two crude oil partners, Canada and Mexico, while only about 20% of our imports come from the Middle East.

Furthermore, because our imported oil represents only about 50-60% of our total consumption (meaning our domestic production makes up the balance), the percentage of our total consumption - around 20 million barrels a day - that comes from the Middle East is only in the range of 10-12%. That's it! And about two-thirds of that comes from Saudi Arabia with most of the remainder coming from Iraq and Kuwait.

Now, I don't want to necessarily imply that Middle Eastern oil is insignificant to us. Certainly, that region of the world has vast reserves of fossil fuels. But to learn that better than 75% of our nation's consumption of crude oil is supplied by the U.S., Canada and Mexico? Needless to say, it came as quite a surprise.

So it begs the questions: If we really aren't so reliant on Middle Eastern oil after all, why is it that we all believe we are? And why is it that our government continually drives home the point that we are?

And more to the point: Are we dependent upon the Middle East....or is the Middle East dependent upon us?

Another one of those things that make you go, "Hmmmmmmmm."

Good Move: Paul Hackett steps aside from Ohio Senate race

2006-02-14T18:10:00.000-06:00

On the surface, I was disappointed to hear that Paul Hackett had been "asked" to step aside by Dem leaders in his bid for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate race in Ohio. He has a good message and showed that he can give a Republican in a Republican stronghold a run for her money.

But from a strategic point of view, I must say that this appears to be a good decision for the Democrats. Hackett's message is the war, but Ohio's fate is more likely to turn this year on ethics. Brown can sell that message. Brown also has much more financial support and legislative experience that he can leverage in the Senate. Hackett is a newbie who might be better served by trying to get into the House first.

I like Hackett, but it doesn't do the Dems much good to have Brown and Hackett beat each other up and have just one of them standing to fight in November. They need to spread themselves around to gain more numbers rather than concentrating in the same race.

The Republicans have eaten the Dems' lunch over the last 12 years when it comes to election strategy. It's high time that the Dems start to employ effective strategic planning of their own to counter the Repubs' strength. I believe this is an example of that. It may seem a bit cruel on the surface, but it really is the right thing to do. Hopefully, Hackett will realize this and take another run at a House seat.

White House jokes; victim suffers heart attack

2006-02-14T14:06:00.000-06:00

Nice to see the White House finds so much humor in its Veep's shooting prowess while the man who was either shot or peppered with birdshot, depending on your point of view, suffered a mild heart attack this morning caused by birdshot that is lodged in his heart.

I'm not a physician, but it seems to me that birdshot lodged in one's heart isn't exactly the result of a mild peppering with birdshot. While the White House would have us believe that Whittington just took a bit of a pelting from Cheney's 28-gauge shotgun, it appears that there was just a bit more penetration than originally indicated.

Mr. Whittington, the victim, is no longer in the sights of Dick Cheney's weaponry. But it appears that he isn't quite out of the woods just yet.

Was Plame's identity disclosed to foil intelligence on Iran's nukes?

2006-02-13T18:12:00.000-06:00

The Raw Story is reporting that, according to confidential sources, Valerie Plame's covert work for the CIA was directly tied to Iran's nuclear proliferation efforts. If true, this could open an interesting can of worms regarding the intent of those who disclosed her identity to the media in 2003.

The line of thinking has been that Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative was disclosed in order to cast doubt on Joseph Wilson's op-ed piece regarding the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's nuclear intentions. Wilson is Plame's husband. After he ventured to Niger in 2002, Wilson reported back to the CIA that claims about Iraq's purchasing yellowcake uranium from Niger were false. In spite of this, the Bush administration continued to claim otherwise.

So, if Plame's work involved Iran's nuclear ambitions - or lack thereof - is it possible that she was outed in order to hinder her intelligence gathering work on Iran? The Bush administration's plans for Iran are directly tied to that country's alleged attempts to revive its dormant nuclear weapons program. Could Plame's work have jeopardized these plans?

With Plame and her intelligence network put out of commission the moment her identity was disclosed, any evidence that could have countered what the Bush administration now wants to sell as fact essentially went up in smoke.

We'll have to keep an eye on this story.

Joint Chiefs Recommended Attacks on Americans

2006-02-12T20:22:00.000-06:00

The year was 1962. Castro was in control of Cuba. The United States was perplexed by a communist regime that had close ties to the Soviet Union and was located just 90 miles from the U.S. mainland.

What to do?

Well, as uncovered in James Bamford's 2001 book "Body of Secrets", the Joint Chiefs of Staff came up with an unusual recommendation: Operation Northwoods.

What was Operation Northwoods?

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

That's right. This nation's top military brass - led by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer (pictured above) - recommended attacks on their own military personnel and innocent civilians in order to justify going to war with Cuba.

Thankfully, the plan that was endorsed by all members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was rejected by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. And it wasn't until nearly forty years later that Operation Northwoods finally was disclosed under a Freedom of Information Act request.

That such an abominable suggestion would even be made in the first place is, perhaps, secondary in stupidity to the fact that Operation Northwoods was committed to paper for all eternity. As some have pointed out, had such an operation been drawn up by the CIA, the paper trail would have been non-existent. Nobody ever would have known that such an operation had been contemplated. Apparently, the military hadn't quite figured out the subtle nuances of "black ops".

Not that the Joint Chiefs should be faulted for a lack of trying, however. Despite being shot down by McNamara on Operation Northwoods, the Joint Chiefs continued to develop "pretext" plans.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

Our military leaders had some crazy ideas back then. Driven by a distrust of what they considered to be a soft, liberal civilian leadership, the Joint Chiefs took it upon themselves to find their own solutions to vexing, geo-political problems. As far as we know, they were unsuccessful in carrying them out.

So why does Operation Northwoods bear mentioning today, nearly 45 years after the fact? Frankly, I found it to be an interesting concept that our leaders at the highest levels of government would actually - and seriously - consider unleashing deadly attacks on its own people in order to justify a course of action.

Would others consider doing something similar? Could certain distant or more recent events have had a more devious - or sinister - pretext? Would the leadership of this country consider murdering its own in order to further an agenda?

While many would call such questions akin to treason for even suggesting something so unthinkable, history tells us that, yes, some in our leadership would consider doing just that.

Could it happen again? You be the judge.

Bringing FEAR to a high school near you

2006-02-09T14:25:00.000-06:00

This morning's Dallas Morning News reports that a local high school is getting ready to offer a new course next fall. Nothing too unusual about that, you say? Perhaps a new literature or mathematics or science course designed to better prepare our youth for the rigors of college?

Well, not exactly.

As it turns out, Southlake (TX) Carroll Senior High School plans to offer an elective course in...homeland security. And given that Southlake is a very tony suburb of Dallas and Fort Worth, there's little doubt that the pronounced Republican leaning of the town's well-to-do populace hasn't particularly hindered the development of such a course.

Students would study information security, domestic and world terrorism, criminal justice and forensic psychology in the elective course approved by the school board on Monday.
The district is awaiting approval from the Texas Education Agency so that students can receive state credit for the introductory class.
"We just thought if you're an accountant or whatever your job is going to be in life, it would serve you well as you move into this time in history that you know something about homeland security," Carroll Senior High principal Daniel Presley said.

Carroll Senior High teacher Sandra Griffin, who researched and developed the curriculum, said the course makes sense because the high school in Southlake is near Alliance Airport and Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport and close to state border issues.
"It's just a critical need, especially for our area because of our proximity and some avenues that terrorists choose," Ms. Griffin said. "As we know from 9/11, it's the airways."
A social studies or science teacher will lead the course. Students will analyze terrorist attacks, use vocabulary associated with homeland security, learn the government's role in policy development, practice negotiation and mediation strategies, and study the impact of terrorism.

So much for focusing on the enhancement of students' capabilities in math and science. Let's just teach them why everyone should be afraid of the Bush administration's favorite bogeyman: the terrorist.

Who knows? This might even catch on in other parts of the country. We might even see homeland security courses combined with intelligent design curricula to create a one-two punch of right wing hysteria in our public schools. Wouldn't that be a treat?

David McEntire, associate professor of emergency administration and planning at the University of North Texas, said the Carroll school district is being progressive by offering such a course at the high school level.
"I think that our world has changed dramatically," Dr. McEntire said. "There is an increasing recognition that terrorism is a major threat that we have to deal with.
"Because it's a relatively new field, we really need to have the public buy-in in dealing with terrorism," he said.

Never mind the fact that over 15,000 people are killed by drunk drivers in this country every year, or that over 30,000 people are killed by handguns each year, but let's continue to focus all of our attention on the remote chance that the terrorists are going to blow us all to pieces.

Of course, terrorism is a threat, both here and around the world. The terrible events of 9/11/01 demonstrated that in brutally vivid detail. But most of us are far more likely to die driving to or from work each day than ever being the victim of a terrorist attack. Yet, an inordinate amount of attention and money continues to fuel the pyre of fear that has been set ablaze - and continually stoked - by the Bush administration. And soon, many of our youngsters may become the newest experts in the "war on terror".

Honestly, I'd be much more impressed if our kids became experts in the "war on drugs" or in the "war on cancer". Alas, there are only so many wars that can be fought at any one time. The "war on terror" seems to be the war of choice at the moment...and, sadly, for some time to come.

Hannity and O'Reilly: Wholesome and kid-friendly?

2006-02-06T19:01:00.000-06:00

The Dish Network has unveiled a new programming package designed specifically for families with kids. It's called DishFAMILY and it's touted as "wholesome, worry-free TV."

Among the 40 available channels of "kid-friendly, parent-approved TV" is none other than FOX News Channel, featuring the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

Nice to see that Dish is more than happy to unleash the vile and ignorant drivel of Hannity and O'Reilly, among others, on our nation's youngsters. Like many of those on the right, these hucksters may talk a good game about family and values, but it's nothing more than smoke and mirrors...and lies.

Just ask Andrea Mackris about the loofah sponge.

Allowing kids to watch FOX News isn't far removed from child abuse. No thanks. There's plenty of other garbage on TV without exposing kids to the most biased news coverage this side of Pyongyang.

Bush: Gone fishing

2006-02-05T00:26:00.000-06:00

A very revealing article in Sunday's Washington Post indicates that the Bush administration's infamous warrantless surveillance program is nothing but a big fishing expedition that turned up little in the way of actionable leads in relation to the useless leads it produced.

And, according to many legal analysts who have studied the matter, this is a major problem in relation to both the probable cause and the reasonable basis provisions in the Fourth Amendment.

Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause.

The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.

The program has touched many more Americans than that. Surveillance takes place in several stages, officials said, the earliest by machine. Computer-controlled systems collect and sift basic information about hundreds of thousands of faxes, e-mails and telephone calls into and out of the United States before selecting the ones for scrutiny by human eyes and ears.

Successive stages of filtering grow more intrusive as artificial intelligence systems rank voice and data traffic in order of likeliest interest to human analysts. But intelligence officers, who test the computer judgments by listening initially to brief fragments of conversation, "wash out" most of the leads within days or weeks.

The scale of warrantless surveillance, and the high proportion of bystanders swept in, sheds new light on Bush's circumvention of the courts. National security lawyers, in and out of government, said the washout rate raised fresh doubts about the program's lawfulness under the Fourth Amendment, because a search cannot be judged "reasonable" if it is based on evidence that experience shows to be unreliable. Other officials said the disclosures might shift the terms of public debate, altering perceptions about the balance between privacy lost and security gained.

Hmmm. Sounds like a problem to me.

The article goes on to talk about a variety of mechanical methods of obtaining and sifting through communications. And by the sound of it, the government may be well on its way to sifting through ALL of our communications for tidbits of useful information. If they're looking for legitimate terrorist threats, that's one thing. But it opens an entirely new can of worms if the government - or certain elements within that government - decides to look for something else altogether.

Do you trust your government to do only the "right" thing with all of this information? I don't.

Tom Brady Elected to Hall of Fame

2006-02-04T22:28:00.000-06:00

Among those selected today for induction into the pro football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio, the happiest of all must be New England Patriots' quarterback Tom Brady. For a man who's been a starter for just five years and is still an active player, such an enormous honor must have been unexpected for the 28-year-old.

You see, Hall of Fame eligibility normally requires a wait of five years after retiring from the NFL. And many players, such as another of today's inductees, Rayfield Wright, have been gone from the game for decades before being selected for induction. Brady is just entering the prime of his career and his ticket to Canton already has been stamped. His bronze likeness is being forged and his yellow member blazer is on order.

What's that you say? Tom Brady wasn't selected for HOF induction today?

Well, you do have a point there. Technically, I suppose, he wasn't actually named to the 2006 class of inductees. But he might as well have been. With the actual selection of former Dallas Cowboys quarterback Troy Aikman today, it all but ensures that Brady will be enshrined in Canton in the not-so-distant future. Sure, he's got a bunch more years to play in the NFL, but he's HOF-bound. Guaranteed!

Why am I so certain of that? Namely, because of Aikman.

Quite simply, Aikman was able to turn a decent, 12-year NFL run into a Hall of Fame calibre career by doing something that Brady already has accomplished in just six seasons: leading his team to three Super Bowl titles in a four-year span. Aikman did it with the Cowboys during the 1992, 1993 and 1995 seasons. Brady did it with the Patriots during the 2001, 2003 and 2004 seasons.

Okay, so Brady's won a few Super Bowls. Why should that qualify him for the HOF when he's only been in the league since 2000? Shouldn't a player have to prove his worthiness over a longer period than just five or six seasons?

Well, former Chicago Bears running back Gale Sayers, who was inducted in the HOF in 1977, played essentially five seasons in a career shortened by injury. But even though he played in only 68 games from 1965 to 1971, his undeniable talent and spectacular performance on the field over that short time period made him a no-brainer choice for induction in his first year of eligibility. And he never even played in a league championship game, let alone won one.

But perhaps the strongest case for Brady's eventual induction is Aikman, also selected for induction in his first year of eligibility. In spite of Aikman's three Super Bowl victories, his career statistics were relatively pedestrian compared to most HOF quarterbacks. Over his twelve seasons, Aikman threw for 20 or more touchdowns in a season just once and averaged exactly one touchdown pass per game, throwing for 165 TDs in 165 games. Brady, meanwhile, already has thrown 123 TD passes in just 80 games.

In addition, Aikman and Brady have similar career numbers in completion percentage (61.5% and 61.9%, respectively) and yards per passing attempt (7.0 and 7.1, respectively). Aikman finished his career with only 24 more TD passes than interceptions thrown, while Brady is already a plus-57 on that statistic. And unless Brady's arm falls off, he will continue to widen that gap.

There was some concern before today's selection results were announced that Troy Aikman's career statistics didn't warrant HOF status. But the three Super Bowl wins combined with a stellar reputation as a team player and an all-around good guy clearly were enough to satisfy the voters that Aikman was a no-brainer choice in his first year of eligibility.

When Aikman is officially enshrined in Canton this summer, Brady will get a nice sneak peak at his own future. And whatever else he accomplishes during his playing career will be nothing but gravy. Not bad for a sixth round draft pick (#199 overall) out of Michigan who was only the seventh quarterback taken in what was a down year for quarterback prospects.

Yes, Tom Brady must be a very happy young man today. After just six seasons in the NFL, he's already secured his place in history. In fact, he might as well start composing his induction speech and putting together his invitation list right now. He may have been a late bloomer coming out of college, but he won't waste any time getting to the HOF dance. It's really just a matter of time.

Do you wanna know a secret?

2006-02-03T17:20:00.000-06:00

From a news report on Yahoo:

"It, obviously, reveals techniques and sources and methods that are important to try to protect," Cheney said. "It gives information to our enemies about how we go about collecting intelligence against them. It also raises questions in the minds of other intelligence services about whether or not they can work with the United States intelligence service, with our for example, if we can't keep a secret."

What the hell is this guy smoking? I think Cheney must have gotten an angioplasty balloon that went to his brain and self-inflated. Poof!

Can't keep a secret? His own office outed a CIA officer's identity and he's bellyaching about keeping secrets?

And that's not to mention the FACT that exposing an illegal, warrantless spying operation has done absolutely nothing to harm investigative techniques. That is absolutely ridiculous!

These people are all insane!

New Name Alert: "The Long War"

2006-02-02T23:25:00.000-06:00

Apparently, "The War on Terror" is losing its cachet in certain circles. So, to combat the inevitable ambivalence that many Americans may begin to exhibit towards "The War on Terror", the White House and the Pentagon have begun to re-brand the global conflict as "The Long War".

The United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday.

Rumsfeld, who laid out broad strategies for what the military and the Bush administration are now calling the "long war," likened al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin while urging Americans not to give in on the battle of wills that could stretch for years. He said there is a tendency to underestimate the threats that terrorists pose to global security, and said liberty is at stake.

That's right. The Bush administration, apparently, is admitting that it cannot win "The War on Terror". And, as a result, it also is affirming that the neo-conservative-led Republican Party has been able to successfully replace the U.S. defense and military complex's Cold War sustenance with a newfound, long-term source of funding. The death knell felt throughout the defense industry when the Berlin Wall came crumbling down and the old Soviet Union split apart into its respective Republics has been overtaken by newfound optimism for a virtual pot of gold at the end of the rainbow: a long-term conflict that will prop up defense coffers for decades to come.

We all know that 9/11/01 was a terrible tragedy, but it certainly wasn't the beginning of terrorism, something that has been around for a long, long, long time. Attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa and the USS Cole, not to mention the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, are just a few of the many examples of terrorist activity in recent years. And much of the terrorist activity hasn't been undertaken by Islamic extremists, either. The Irish Republican Army, Spain's Basque Separatists, Germany's Red Brigade are just three of many terror groups intent on making their respective points by resorting to violent attacks. Again, it's nothing new. Yet, I don't recall anyone declaring a "war on terror", per se.

We all know that the Bush administration paid virtually no attention to terrorism in its first eight months in office in 2001. In fact, direct requests and pleas from terrorism experts such as Richard Clarke fell on deaf ears within the Bush administration. Even Presidential Daily Briefings highlighting the potential for terrorist attacks went unheeded in the White House. When it came to terrorism, the silence eminating from the White House was, indeed, deafening...especially in hindsight.

Then one brutal act of terrorism in this country apparently changed the world forever. It served as the catalyst for not only "The War on Terror", but also a war in Iraq and now "The Long War". But, in reality, terrorism has always been with us and it always will be with us in one form or another. It's really nothing new.

Is the military the right tool for eradicating terrorism, as the White House and the Pentagon seem to believe? Quite simply, no. It's not a military issue at all. It's a law enforcement issue. Terrorists are criminals. They are not "enemy combatants", as the Bush White House would have us believe. The "War on Terror" should be no different than the "War on Organized Crime" or the "War on Drugs" or the "War on White Collar Crime". It's a law enforcement issue, not a military one.

But there are too many benefits to a military "War on Terror" for the Bush administration and its long list of cronies. In fact, any war is good for this group. Too many benefits accrue, not the least of which is the enormous executive power grab that the White House has undertaken over the last four-plus years. Add in the ungodly amounts of money accruing to major players in the military-industrial complex and war really turns into a great business proposition.

Sadly, in the eyes of the Bush administration and its neo-con core, war has become as American as baseball and apple pie. And now that the rest of the world is coming to understand this so well, "The Long War" may, indeed, prove to be longer than any of us would ever dare to imagine.

Welcome to life with a target on our backs.

A beacon of freedom? Not so much.

2006-01-31T22:27:00.000-06:00

CNN and the Washington Post are reporting that anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested tonight while attending the State of the Union address in Washington. Apparently, her crime was to wear a shirt with an anti-war slogan on it while she sat in the gallery as a guest of a member of the House.

She opened her jacket to reveal a T-shirt that, according to a supporter, gave the number of U.S. war dead and asked, "How many more?"

She was also boisterous, according to U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was escorted out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited.

Boisterous, eh? Is it a felony or a misdemeanor to be boisterous these days? Seems to me there were more than a few members of the Senate and House who were a little too boisterous tonight. Were they arrested, too? Didn't think so.

President Bush tonight essentially called the U.S. a beacon of democracy and freedom around the world. But is there any reason why the other 6 billion or so inhabitants of our planet should take his words seriously when people are being arrested here for speaking - or displaying - what's on their minds? Are our leaders so incapable of listening to other, dissenting points of view that they feel the need to quash that dissent?

The bottom line is that President Bush and his administration are setting an undeniably poor example for burgeoning democracies around the world. Whether it's stamping out dissent, painting opponents as traitors, or authorizing illegal spying on Americans' conversations and other communications, this administration is tearing apart the very fabric of our Constitution bit by bit.

As a true American patriot once said, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." If only President Bush and others who support him would take those words of Thomas Jefferson to heart. Sadly, they appear both unwilling to do so and incapable of understanding why it's important. And bit by sickly bit our own freedom and our democratic ideals whither away.

State of which Union?

2006-01-31T17:01:00.000-06:00

According the Washington Pos t, President Bush is planning to convey "optimism" in tonight's State of the Union address. Optimism? About what?

I'm all for looking at things from a "glass is half full" perspective, but come on! Bush's glass is so empty, it makes the Mojave Desert look like the Land of 10,000 Lakes in comparison.

That said, I just can't get too excited about the address. Frankly, Bush continually spews nothing but lies and falsehoods, which only makes my blood boil. It's not as though there is any sort of debate taking place that would force him to defend his position on things. Now that would be entertaining...and maybe even just a bit informative. Instead, we'll get just more of the same one-sided garbage he throws out to the myriad pre-screened audiences he and his handlers seem to favor so immensely. After a while, you just can't take it anymore.

This administration has become such an embarassment, but what's even more embarassing is that 40% - give or take - of Americans still contend that Bush is doing a good job. Are these people INSANE?!!

As I watch the President tonight, if I watch the President tonight (with TiVo, I may even watch tomorrow instead), I constantly will be reminded by looking at Bush - and Vice President Cheney sitting behind him - that these men and many of their cohorts should be going to jail. They and their ilk essentially are nothing but criminals.

Perhaps this bunch should be appearing on "America's Most Wanted" instead. Now that I would watch!

Quote of the Day: "We do not negotiate with terrorists."

2006-01-29T22:48:00.000-06:00

Those were the official words of the Bush administration, as spoken last week by White House press secretary Scott McClellan. It seems like a pretty clear-cut statement, uttered by McClellan shortly after the release of the latest Osama bin Laden audiotape.

Well, according to an exclusive report in the latest issue of Newsweek, U.S. officials are currently engaged in talks with Iraqi insurgents. Say what?!

American officials in Iraq are in face-to-face talks with high-level Iraqi Sunni insurgents, NEWSWEEK has learned. Americans are sitting down with "senior members of the leadership" of the Iraqi insurgency, according to Americans and Iraqis with knowledge of the talks (who did not want to be identified when discussing a sensitive and ongoing matter). The talks are taking place at U.S. military bases in Anbar province, as well as in Jordan and Syria.

Now that's a radical departure from the rhetoric we've been hearing about "no negotiating, only killing" the insurgent terrorists. Is the Bush administration finally going soft after all of the tough talk? Are they becoming desperate to end the occupation in a somewhat peaceful manner?

Or, perhaps, is this a new tactic designed to drive a wedge between the indigenous Iraqi resistance and the foreign jihadists imported by Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi?

U.S. intelligence officials have had back-door channels to insurgent groups for many months. The Dec. 15 elections brought many Sunnis to the polls and widened the split between Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi's foreign jihadists and indigenous Sunni insurgents. This marks the first time either Americans or insurgents have admitted that "senior leaders" have met at the negotiating table for planning purposes.

With a fear on both sides that Iran soon may begin to play a more intrusive role in the political future of Iraq, perhaps there's increased urgency to cooperate against a new, common enemy. What this means for the future of the insurgency and the future of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" remains to be seen. Certainly, if it begins to lose the support of the Sunni resistance, Zarqawi's organization may find itself fighting an uphill battle in its effort to destabilize the new Iraqi government.

On the other hand, extensive talks between the U.S. and the Sunnis may spark concern amongst the majority Shia population, creating a potential backlash that could push the country further in the direction of the Iranians. And, in fact, that could be the overriding concern for the U.S. as it delicately tries to toe a fine line between placating the insurgency and keeping the nascent Iraqi government from cozying up to Iran.

Contacts between U.S. officials and insurgents have been criticized by Iraq's ruling Shiite leaders, many of whom have longstanding ties to Iran and are deeply resented by Sunnis. "We haven't given the green light to [talks] between the U.S. and insurgents," says Vice President Adel Abdel Mehdi, of the Shiite party, called the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

In many ways, it appears that the Bush administration is caught between the proverbial "Iraq and a hard place." But they need to cut the crap and come back to reality on the whole "we aren't negotiating with terrorists" stance. Either they are or they aren't. Apparently, they are negotiating while the rest of us continue to get nothing but lies. The beat goes on...

Oh, say can Jussi!

2006-01-28T20:26:00.000-06:00

Among this year's crop of sensational rookies in the National Hockey League, most of the attention has fallen upon the likes of young super-phenoms Sidney Crosby, 18, of the Pittsburgh Penguins and Alexander Ovechkin, 20, of the Washington Capitals. Without question, Crosby and Ovechkin, both of whom are in the NHL's top 15 in scoring with nearly two-thirds of the season completed, will be the dominant players of the next decade or two. And, arguably, they are the closest proxies of Gretzky and Lemieux that we've seen yet.

Among the remainder of this year's outstanding rookie class is a 22-year-old native of Kalajoki, Finland, named Jussi Jokinen (YOO-see YO-kuh-nehn). In his first season playing for the Dallas Stars, Jokinen has blended in nicely playing primarily with longtime Stars Mike Modano and fellow countryman Jere Lehtinen. While Jokinen (32 points) hasn't put up the numbers of Crosby (59 points) or Ovechkin (64 points) so far, he has excelled beyond expectations when it comes to the newest wrinkle in this season's NHL: the shootout.

Prior to the 2005-06 season, NHL regular season games that were tied after regulation finished with a 5-minute, sudden death overtime period. If the game still was tied after the 5-minute overtime, the game ended in a tie.

This season, the NHL has implemented a three-round shootout - basically a series of 1-on-1 penalty shots pitting a skater against the opposing goaltender - in order to ensure that no game ends in a tie. If the teams are tied after the three rounds of the shootout, they continue going one round at a time until one team wins. It has become an unmitigated hit with the fans.

So, how has Jokinen fared in this newfangled shootout? As the Stars' typical #2 shooter in each of their eight shootouts so far this season, he hasn't missed, including today's exciting 2-1 shootout victory over the Detroit Red Wings. That's right, he's a perfect 8-for-8 going head-to-head with the opposing goaltender.

The next best performance by any other player in the league with at least five shootout attempts is none other than Ovechkin, who's made 6 of 9. But even this surefire phenom hasn't been able to keep pace with Jokinen's perfection.

When Finland's 2006 Olympic hockey team was announced last month, Jussi Jokinen wasn't on the list. But then fate intervened when Chicago Blackhawks forward Tuomo Ruutu suffered what is likely a season-ending ankle injury on January 8th. In order to fill the spot on the Olympic team that opened as a result of Ruutu's injury, the Finnish national team selected Jokinen to take his place in what could be a very portentious decision.

You see, since the shootout is used in international play to decide tied games, having Jussi Jokinen (not to be confused with his unrelated countryman and fellow Olympian Olli Jokinen of the Florida Panthers) there to participate could be the difference between a medal and no medal for Team Finland.

Yes, they will be quite happy to see Jussi in Torino, Italy, with a game on the line, just as his Dallas Stars teammates have been happy to see him on their side all season long.

Bursting the Bubble

2006-01-27T23:27:00.000-06:00

Just finished watching the HDNet premiere of Steven Soderbergh's Bubble. This new film also premiered tonight in select theaters around the country and it will be out on DVD on Tuesday. It's Mark Cuban's new film distribution brainchild, getting its kick-start tonight.

Bubble certainly wasn't your everyday Hollywood production. Far from it, in fact.

One's first clue to how different this movie really is was the acting. Soderbergh used untrained actors - regular people, if you will - for the entire cast. Some performed better than others. And while I suppose it added an aura of normalcy to the story, I thought the use of non-actors detracted from the emotional depth of the characters. It seemed that the dialogue was forced through much of the first half of the film. Certainly not what one would expect from a professional film production.

That said, this clearly wasn't intended to be a standard Hollywood production. As Soderbergh himself has said, this was meant to be something different, something unusual, something out of the mainstream. And it certainly was.

What I did like about the film was the cinematography. It was very well done in the way it used a variety of angles, depths and imagery to portray the poor, small town setting, the unusual doll factory and the implied thoughts of the characters. The high definition filming also looked wonderful on a large-screen HD television. Soderbergh's consistent use of natural lighting also imbued most scenes with a sense of realism, like this could be happening in anyone's neighborhood.

The plot itself was a bit bland and shallow. Clearly, we've seen much more interesting storylines in a Scooby Doo cartoon. Soderbergh says that he was interested in playing out the repetitive and monotonous nature of a small town, dead-end factory job against the backdrop of friendship, jealousy and murder. I see his point, but I'm not sure that it came through as strongly as he might have liked. The shallowness of the characterizations made it difficult to feel empathy - or anything else - for the people in the film. It was almost like watching a reality-based documentary without the accompanying analysis.

Did I like the film? I'd have to say no.

Was it interesting? Somewhat. Entertaining? No. While it may have been fun for Soderbergh and crew to make Bubble, it just wasn't much fun to watch.

So I will give Bubble 2 out of a possible 5 drewl buckets. I would have given it just one drewl bucket, but I'm willing to give Soderbergh some slack on this one.

Soderbergh has five more flicks planned for Mark Cuban's and Todd Wagner's 2929 Productions, all of which will be shown on HDNet, in theaters and distributed on DVD at virtually the same time. Hopefully his others will be more interesting than his first.

How about the Tampa Bay Pat Robertsons?

2006-01-27T16:29:00.000-06:00

One would think that a major league baseball team known for its inability to win baseball games would have more on its collective mind than fiddling around with the club's nickname. Apparently not.

Rather than trying to develop young pitchers or attempting to lure a legitimate power hitter, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, the team with the worst overall winning percentage (.401) of any current major league franchise, seem to think that the road to baseball salvation begins with saying "no" to the Devil. The "Devil" in Devil Rays, that is.

"When [new owner] Stu Sternberg came in, he said there was a need for dramatic change. One way for dramatic change is to change the name," team president Matt Silverman told the paper.

Silverman said that one option is to remove the "Devil" from Devil Rays after meetings with focus groups revealed a negative association with the with word "devil," the Tribune reported.

"When they liked something we did, they would refer to us as the Rays. If they were discussing a complaint or gripe, we were the Devil Rays," Silverman told the paper.

Perhaps by exorcising the Devil from their name, the Rays believe that God will shine His glory on the club and turn them into a winner. After all, the only time the Devil did anything good in baseball, he was a creepy dude named Mr. Applegate who helped the hapless Washington Senators beat those "Damn Yankees". But that was just show business. Sadly for the Tampa Bay (Devil) Rays, a deal with the Devil wasn't enough to make them a winner. Where's Shoeless Joe from Hannibal, MO, when you need him?

Time will tell if the name change will do the Rays any good. Pitching and hitting are overrated, anyway, right?

Another shot over the bow of Congress

2006-01-27T15:41:00.000-06:00

Just when you thought the Bush administration's contempt for Congress couldn't grow any stronger, earlier this week the administration's top official for mine safety and health decided that he had had enough of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee's questions, so he got up and left the proceedings. Think Progress has the video.

The administration's two top mine safety officials had finished testifying, but Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) asked them to stick around for an extra hour in case other questions came up -- as is the panel's custom. Sorry, said David G. Dye, the acting assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health. He and Ray McKinney, the federal administrator of coal mine safety, had too much real work to do to sit around listening to a group of pesky senators. A rescue team was still in the Sago Mine, Dye said, and a mine fire was burning in Colorado.

While one can appreciate that people have busy schedules and work to do, when a Senate subcommitte is taking time out of its collective schedule to delve into issues surrounding several recent mining disasters, taking an extra hour to answer senators' questions isn't asking a whole lot. But that sort of arrogance and hubris seems to run through the veins of many in the executive branch these days. "Thank you for your time, Senators. But, frankly, we have more important things to do. Ta-ta." Now that's the way to win friends and influence people.

And this, in a nutshell, is the way this executive branch treats its supposedly equal partner: as an annoying impediment to the real work of government. It provides information to Congress grudgingly, if at all. It handles letters from lawmakers like junk mail, routinely tossing them aside without responding.

It unabashedly evades the need for Senate confirmation of officials by resorting to recess appointments, even for key government posts; see, for example, the recent recess appointments of the top immigration official, the number two person at the Defense Department and half of the Federal Election Commission.

It thinks of congressional oversight as if it were a trip to the dentist, to be undertaken reluctantly and gotten over with as quickly as possible. Most astonishingly, it reserves the right simply to ignore congressional dictates that it has decided intrude too much on executive branch power. President Bush's thumb-in-the-congressional-eye statement when he signed the bill banning torture of detainees, in which he announced that he would construe the law "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President," is one recent, and flagrant, example.

The Bush administration continues to dig a virtual moat around the executive branch as it methodically builds a towering castle that is increasingly impervious to criticism and oversight by the other, supposedly balancing branches of government. And with the recent appointments of conservative Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito (expected to be confirmed by the Senate next week), the Bush administration may be counting on the high court to uphold its major league power grab when several highly questionable - and arguably illegal - tactics are likely to be brought before the Supreme Court over the coming weeks, months, years.

War on terror? More to the point, there is an internal war on the Constitution taking place, and the commander in chief might just as well be described as a virtual terrorist in chief, intent on bringing our most sacred governance document to its proverbial knees. Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.

Democracy is like a box of chocolates...

2006-01-26T16:39:00.000-06:00

With the recent victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections and the strict Islamist Shia election victory in Iraq, I wonder if the Bush administration has decided to re-think its "Democracy is on the march" mantra for the Middle East.

Democracy is a wonderful thing...that is, as long as you get the results you were hoping for. The funny thing about democracy is that it allows the will of the people to prevail, regardless of what result the United States government might prefer. In many respects, the Bush administration will get exactly what it deserves in the Middle East. And the more they try to fight it, the more militant will be the support for whichever regime opposes the U.S.

Maybe one day the Bush administration will understand this concept.

And speaking of Middle East elections...

Regarding Iran, some say that an attack by the United States in order to curb Iran's apparent nuclear intentions could actually backfire by galvanizing internal support for its controversial president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And if people don't understand why that might happen, just think back to September of 2001 when a relatively new U.S. President who was out of favor with the majority of Americans suddenly found his support above 90%. And all it took was a one-day assault by nineteen men upon four commercial aircraft and three buildings to turn a virtual lame-duck president into the trusted and fearless leader of a nation of 300 million under attack. Do we really want to help Ahmadinejad by throwing the support of 70 million Iranians behind his twisted view of the world?

Right now, the best lesson for the Bush administration may be one made famous by Forrest Gump: Democracy is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get.

Unfortunately for the United States and Israel, the "box of chocolates" in the Middle East isn't tasting quite so sweet these days.

DoJ and Congress opposed FISA changes in 2002!!

2006-01-25T23:52:00.000-06:00

Got this from a few different places, including Worfeus, Unclaimed Territory and Knight Ridder journalist Jonathon Landay. And, no doubt, we'll be hearing a lot more about this in the coming days and weeks. It has the potential to blow the lid off the entire warrantless spying controversy. I think this information turns the controversy into a full-fledged scandal. Time will tell.

According to reports, the Department of Justice declined to request changes to the FISA law which would have loosened its restrictions to make it easier to conduct surveillance.

In its 2002 statement, the Justice Department said it opposed a legislative proposal to change FISA to make it easier to obtain warrants that would allow the super-secret National Security Agency to listen in on communications involving non-U.S. citizens inside the United States.

James A. Baker, the Justice Department's top lawyer on intelligence policy, made the statement before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 31, 2002. He was laying out the department's position on an amendment to FISA proposed by Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio. The committee rejected DeWine's proposal, leaving FISA intact.

So while Congress chose not to weaken FISA in 2002, today Bush and his allies contend that Congress implicitly gave Bush the authority to evade FISA's requirements when it authorized him to use force in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks three days after they occurred - a contention that many lawmakers reject.

So, Congress didn't see a need to relax FISA. But Bush and company claim that Congress agreed to allow the NSA to ignore FISA altogether. And even the DoJ agreed that there was insufficient evidence to indicate a need to relax FISA. Yet, the White House determined unilaterally that it didn't need FISA at all!!

This is going to get very interesting. Very interesting, indeed!

Quote of the Day: "If there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth."

2006-01-25T22:26:00.000-06:00

That statement was uttered on Monday by the former head of the National Security Agency, General Michael Hayden, as he tried to defend the warrantless spying program approved by President Bush. But based on the comments he made just before that, one has to wonder if he really is all that familiar with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Here is what the Fourth Amendment, a part of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, says:

"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, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You'll note the emphasis I've placed on the words, "probable cause". As you're about to see, there's a reason for that.

Near the end of the press conference, a journalist named Jonathon Landay from Knight Ridder asked General Hayden a question about the need for probable cause to exist in order to execute a search. Much to the surprise of Mr. Landay - and, no doubt, others in the room - the General indicated several times that the Fourth Amendment says nothing about "probable cause."

Crooks and Liars has the video up from Keith Olbermann's show. Here is the transcript of the exchange, as provided by Editor & Publisher:

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause." And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

So, as one can see, the General needs a refresher course on the Fourth Amendment. How many others at the NSA and within the Bush administration need a similar refresher?

We've been led to believe that the Bush administration is full of people who believe in "strict constructionism" when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution, and that they want to see jurists who have a similar outlook appointed to the bench. But now we have to wonder if they are, in fact, either confused or beholden to "strict constructionism" only when it suits their needs.

Whatever the case, one thing is clear: The attacks of 9/11/01 were like a family picnic compared to the attack being unleashed by our own government against the very document - and its ideals - that has framed and defined our nation's commitment to democracy for over 200 years. 9/11 was a great tragedy for this nation. But allowing our Constitution to be violated as a result will be the greatest tragedy of all.

DoJ: Department of Justification?

2006-01-24T15:04:00.000-06:00

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who spoke today at Georgetown University, seems to be pulling out all the stops to defend the President's approval of warrantless spying by the NSA. Of course, given that the New York Times sat on the story for over a year, the administration has had plenty of time to come up with some rationale and justification for breaking the law. Unfortunately, the arguments being offered are nothing more than blatant attempts to condone criminal behavior by our own government officials.

Here is a sampling of Gonzales' comments along with my take on them:

"As far as I'm concerned, we have briefed the Congress," he said. "They're aware of the scope of the program."

The only members of Congress who were briefed were the Democrat and Republican leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. And none of them were permitted to discuss the program with anyone, including aids, lawyers, constituents or other members of Congress. For those who may have had misgivings, such as West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, getting the legal opinion of a third-party lawyer was verboten. Call me crazy, but this does not constitute a "briefing of Congress" when only four members of a 535-person legislative body are involved.

"It is simply not the case that Congress in 1978 anticipated all the ways that the president might need to act in times of armed conflict to protect the United States," he told an audience at Georgetown University law school in Washington. "FISA, by its own terms, was not intended to be the last word on these critical issues."

Gonzales makes it sound like the FISA law was enacted in 1778 instead of 1978. FISA was passed by Congress just twenty-eight years ago, during the presidency of Jimmy Carter and in response to the many abuses of power exhibited by the Nixon administration in the early 70s. This isn't ancient history we're talking about. The Cold War with the Soviet Union was still going strong and terrorism had been a concern for many around the world for years. Maybe Gonzales should head to his local cinema and check out a nice little film entitled Munich.

And if FISA wasn't the "last word" on the legalities of government surveillance, it certainly was - and is - THE word based on the manner in which this country enacts laws. Our legislative process dictates that, if someone has a problem with a law that is on the books, then that person or persons may petition Congress to alter the law or to enact a new law. If the FISA law was deemed by the Bush administration to be too restrictive in some fashion, then their recourse was to request a change in the law by Congress. Did they do that? No.

"We have to remember that we're talking about a wartime foreign intelligence program," he said. "It is an 'early warning system' with only one purpose: to detect and prevent the next attack on the United States from foreign agents hiding in our midst."

Firstly, we find ourselves in "wartime" only because we choose to call this "a war" and because the Bush administration elected to start a war in Iraq without legitimate provocation. Did an attack occur in this country in September, 2001? Yes. Was it a military attack? No. Was it a criminal act? Yes. Have terrorist attacks ever happened before? Yes. Were they considered acts of war? No. Were they considered criminal acts? Yes.

Secondly, was the FISA law of 1978 not enacted in order to deter agents, in particular, of the Soviet Union? Yes, it was. In fact, I believe one could refer to them as "foreign agents hiding in our midst." Did the Soviet Union not have weapons of mass destruction? Yes, they most certainly did. In fact, they had enough nuclear weaponry to turn the United States into radioactive dust. Yet, FISA was deemed by Congress to be an adequate measure to help deter the threat.

Thirdly, while Gonzales surely would like us all to believe that the warrantless spying was carried out with the sole intention of rooting out terrorists, haven't we all as Americans earned the right to be distrusting and skeptical of our government and their intentions? FBI surveillance of civil rights leaders, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Abscam, WMDs in Iraq, Valerie Plame, Jack Abramoff, etc. And this brief list only touches the surface. You name it and our government has attempted to get away with it. Why the hell should we trust them on ANYTHING?

"This is about ... gathering up intelligence regarding al Qaeda," he said. "We're talking about communications where one end of the call is outside the United States and where there's a reasonable basis to believe that a person on the call is either a member of al Qaeda or affiliated with al Qaeda."

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's "a reasonable basis to believe that a person on the call is either a member of al Qaeda or affiliated with al Qaeda", then that should provide enough probable cause for a FISA court judge to issue the required warrant. And that warrant, according to the law, doesn't have to be issued until after 72 hours of surveillance have elapsed. One would think that 72 hours is sufficient time to determine whether or not there exists "a reasonable basis to believe that a person on the call is either a member of al Qaeda or affiliated with al Qaeda," as Mr. Gonzales contends.

"I can't speak to specific cases," he said. "What I can say is we believe the program is lawful, the information was gathered in a lawful manner and will not jeopardize any ongoing cases.

"We begin with the proposition that we believe this information was gathered in a lawful manner ... under the authorization to use military force."

First of all, the program clearly is not lawful because it was not conducted within the bounds of the law that specifically covers these activities. And, based on this law, any evidence collected in a manner that isn't allowed by this law...i.e. without a warrant...would be inadmissable in a court of law. Assuming that this administration intends to prosecute cases through the courts - which may, in fact, be a stretch - then that's a problem. They keep talking a good game about "bringing the terrorists to justice". It will be difficult to do so without legally-obtained evidence.

On Gonzales' contention that warrantless spying is allowed based on Congress' authorization to use military force, is he saying that the President is condoning "military force" against U.S. citizens? Typically, such action - sometimes referred to as martial law - is reserved for dire circumstances when the civil court system is incapacitated for one reason or another. In fact, when President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1863 during the Civil War, three years later the U.S. Supreme Court determined that his actions were unconstitutional. Last time I checked, the secret FISA court set up specifically to issue surveillance warrants was still up and running. And the authorizing of military force does not extend to employing that force against U.S. citizens.

The more the Bush administration and its apologists try to justify this illegal program, the more desperate and pathetic they sound. The warrantless spying was illegal, it still is illegal, and the parties who perpetrated it need to be held accountable in a court of law. They need to be brought to justice...the real kind of justice, not some cheap bastardization of it often favored by Bush, Cheney and the Attorney General.

There is no reasonable justification for what was done. None!

Captions, Anyone???

2006-01-23T16:09:00.000-06:00

This photo needs a caption. Any ideas?

Bush = Dork

2006-01-23T15:40:00.000-06:00

This photo of President Bush today trying to justify his warrantless spying says it all. That condescending, leaning-in sneer of his makes you want to go - POW!! - right in the kisser!

What an annoying, supercilious prick.

Quote of the Day: "We are stepping up our efforts to educate the American people about this vital tool in the war on terrorism."

2006-01-23T11:53:00.000-06:00

Those are the words of our good friend, indefatigable White House press secretary Scott McClellan, as President Bush kicks off a stretch of appearances designed to tell us - or at least those who already agree with him - why he felt the need to break the law.

It's nice that they now want to educate us about this "vital tool". They didn't seem too interested in doing so prior to the New York Times' disclosure last month that this "vital tool" existed. There must have been some reason why they were so keen on keeping it all so hush-hush for at least a year after the Times first became aware of it.

At the administration appearances, Bush and aides plan to repeat arguments they have made before: This is a limited program that kicks in only when one of the parties is beyond U.S. borders and has some kind of link to the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.

And as has been outlined and highlighted over and over again, the existing FISA law covers such scenarios as long as the government requests a warrant from the court within 72 hours after surveillance begins. Is that so difficult to understand? For those who have sipped heartily from the Bush administration's kool-aid trough, apparently it is.

March of the unknown white guys

2006-01-22T17:02:00.000-06:00

The National Football League, long known for its teams' inability to hire minority head coaches in significant numbers, found itself this season with three black head coaches whose teams were among the best in the league: Tony Dungy (Indianapolis Colts), Marvin Lewis (Cincinnati Bengals) and Lovie Smith (Chicago Bears). Lewis and Smith, in particular, produced amazing success stories by turning abysmal teams into Super Bowl contenders. And Dungy's Colts managed one of the best regular season records in NFL history.

Meanwhile, seven NFL head coaches were served pink slips during or after the 2005 season. The common denominator? All seven of them are white: Steve Mariucci, Mike Tice, Norv Turner, Dom Capers, Jim Haslett, Mike Sherman and Mike Martz. Two other head coaches, Dick Vermeil and Mike Mularkey, stepped down after their teams missed the playoffs. Both are white. (Herman Edwards, who is black, left the Jets as head coach in order to take the same position with the Kansas City Chiefs.)

So, given the relative success of black head coaches this season in the NFL and the lack of success of many white head coaches, one would think that several top African-American assistant coaches would be in line to get a shot as a head coach. Seems logical, right? As it turns out, not so much.

While a number of black assistant coaches have been mentioned as possible candidates for the many open jobs, and several have even been invited for interviews, none have been given a shot as a head coach. In fact, all of the open jobs filled to date - Detroit, Minnesota, New Orleans, St. Louis, Green Bay, New York Jets - have been given to unknown and relatively inexperienced former assistant coaches, all of whom are white. Their names read like a "who's that?" list of nobodies:

Rod Marinelli (Detroit)
Brad Childress (Minnesota)
Sean Payton (New Orleans)
Scott Linehan (St. Louis)
Mike McCarthy (Green Bay)
Eric Mangini (NY Jets)

Meanwhile, quality minority assistants such as Tim Lewis, Ted Cottrell, Jerry Gray and Ron Rivera, to name just a few, are being passed over like three-week-old leftovers crammed into the back of the refrigerator.

Interestingly, even among the many fired head coaches, several of them are being considered for other head coaching jobs, in spite of their apparent failures with their previous clubs. In fact, Dick Jauron, who was the interim head coach in Detroit after Mariucci was fired mid-season but was not retained, may well land the top job in Buffalo. Jauron was the head coach of the Chicago Bears for five seasons before losing his job after going 35-46. Oh, and Jauron is white. Tice, Sherman and Haslett have been interviewed by other teams, as well.

While I would like to believe that this is nothing more than a numbers game in which it's merely an ugly coincidence that black coaching candidates are being ignored in favor of white coaches, I find it hard to fathom how so many relatively-unqualified white candidates could have landed jobs ahead of more qualified black candidates without some kind of nefarious intentions at work.

For example, new Packers coach McCarthy was the offensive coordinator for the NFL's worst offense this season in San Francisco. The Vikings' Childress, who previously had been the offensive coordinator in Philadelphia, didn't even call his own plays for the Eagles. The Jets' Mangini spent just one season as a defensive coordinator with the Patriots before being offered a head coaching position. These guys arguably haven't proven they can be effective assistants let alone head coaches.

There still are a few open head coaching positions around the NFL. Perhaps Al Davis, longtime owner of the Oakland Raiders and a man not afraid to buck the status quo, will give a qualified minority candidate a chance. After all, he's the one who hired Art Shell as the NFL's first black head coach in 1989. Shell lasted six seasons with the Raiders, posted a 54-38 record and led the team to the playoffs three times. Strangely, he hasn't been offered another head coaching job since he was let go by the Raiders in 1994.

With the success enjoyed by Dungy, Lewis and Smith in 2005, let's hope others will get a chance to show what they can do as head coaches. Clearly, ethnicity has no bearing on how successful someone can be as a head coach. Based on what we've seen over the last month or so, though, I'm not holding my breath. And that really is a crying shame.

There goes the neighborhood

2006-01-21T17:35:00.000-06:00

Why is it that self-proclaimed conservatives feel so threatened by families headed by a homosexual couple rather than a heterosexual couple? With the annual White House Easter Egg Roll on the horizon, conservative groups are up in arms over the desire of gay couples to bring their children to the event. In fact, some have even suggested that all the fun should be restricted to an invitation-only list of attendees. "Sorry, but we don't want kids here if their parents are gay." Nice.

Yet some conservatives, alerted to the plans this week, accuse gay activists of trying to "crash" an event for children and turn it into a forum for ideological politicking. Some groups are discussing ways to respond.

"It's improper to use the egg roll for political purposes," said Mark Tooley of the conservative Institute on Religion and Democracy. Tooley wrote a critical article this week in the Weekly Standard magazine about the planned event that has circulated widely on conservative Web sites.

Since the article appeared, Chrisler said Family Pride has received "a flood of hate-filled, venomous messages telling us that our families aren't welcome."

At the moment, it appears that the White House is refusing to heed the call for restrictions on attendance.

Susan Whitson, press secretary to first lady Laura Bush, indicated the White House was unlikely to restrict admission to the egg roll.

"All families are really welcome to attend," she told the Associated Press on Friday, provided they comply with rules that each family group have no more than two adults and include at least one child under 8.

Well, that's a bit unexpected, given how this administration typically bows to the wishes of its most radical elements. And we all know how they prefer to limit attendance at presidential appearances to those who will not challenge the President or his beliefs. Hopefully, the White House will hold to this policy of openness for this event. The sexual orientation of one's parents should not dictate one's participation in some harmless Easter fun or anything else, for that matter.

And maybe...just maybe...people will begin to see that good and caring parenting goes well beyond the gender and sexual orientation of the parents. People who believe otherwise do nothing but show their ignorance.

Poetic Justice?

2006-01-20T17:21:00.000-06:00

So, al-Qaeda's #2 dude, Ayman al-Zawahri, has just released a new audio of jihadist poetry. And word has it that this new release is climbing the charts faster than Dubya can say, "misunderestimate."

Loosely translated, one of the poems had a vaguely familiar cadence to it:

Roses are red, Violets are blue. Bush is a moron. Oh, and Cheney, too.

That crazy Ayman. He cracks me up.

What next? Osama sings Perry Como? Hmmmm. I can't wait!

Fear and shaming in America

2006-01-19T23:45:00.000-06:00

I have one question about Osama bin Laden's latest "appearance" on the world's stage, where he contends in an audiotape that al-Qaeda is planning new attacks in America:

Why announce it?

I mean, any terrorist worth his salt would take the Nike approach: Just Do It. That was their M.O. prior to 9/11/01. There were no announcements. There were no overt warnings.

And, by the way, what's the point in offering a "truce" if the U.S. leaves Afghanistan and Iraq? I mean, al-Qaeda didn't seem to have a problem attacking the U.S. before we had any presence whatsoever in Afghanistan or Iraq. So what's changed? Is old Osama getting tired of holing up in a cave somewhere in the middle of nowhere?

Isn't it an interesting coincidence that Osama's latest communication comes amid a myriad of Bush administration troubles and just days before the President's upcoming State of the Union address?

So many questions. So few answers. And so much skepticism.

Just say no!

2006-01-19T19:48:00.000-06:00

While I'm all for people eating healthier foods, the lawsuit announced yesterday by a couple of Massachusetts parents and a couple of special interest groups in Boston has to be one of the most frivolous legal actions I've ever seen.

Are food and beverage companies targeting kids with their product ads? Yes. Do kids today consume too much junk food? Sure. Should kids have a healthier diet? Probably. But is this right way to go about it? Absolutely not.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Boston-based group Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and two parents served notice that they intended to sue Viacom, the maker of the popular children's TV show "SpongeBob SquarePants," and the Kellogg Company, a big marketer of food to children, which features the lovable SpongeBob on packages of cereal, Pop Tarts and cookies.

At a news conference in Washington yesterday, the groups argued that using cartoon characters to sell to children is deceptive and unfair.

"It's unfair because kids under 5 don't even know it's a commercial," said Stephen Gardner, director of litigation for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "They think it's a very short SpongeBob program. And it's unfair because at a very important time in their physical and psychological development, kids are being encouraged to eat food that is just not good for them."

The suit, to be filed in Massachusetts under the state's aggressive consumer protection laws, seeks to ban the marketing of food of "poor nutritional quality" to children under 8. Under law, plaintiffs are required to give a 30-day notice to defendants before filing a suit.

The problem here is that parents are the ones who should be monitoring their kids' television watching and their kids' eating habits. It's not as though 5-year-olds are driving themselves to the store and buying up a cart full of Lucky Charms and Cap'n Crunch, for goodness sake. It is the parents who buy the products and it is parents who serve them to their children.

For people who think that parents are put at an unfair advantage because their kids whine incessantly about buying the products they see on TV, there's one word that would solve everything: N-O. No. And it's really not that difficult to do. I know. I'm a parent.

If adults with children would stop trying to be their child's best friend and start being a parent, which usually involves a very healthy dose of the word, "no", then this would cease to be an issue. And if the kids insist on whining about the parent's decision, then it's likely because they've learned that such protestations generally are met with the parent's backing down. Kids aren't dumb.

Just because much of the food marketed to children may be deemed unhealthy doesn't mean that occasional treats aren't warranted. It just means that parents need to do their jobs as parents to monitor and control what their kids eat. It's not easy, but then being a good parent never is.

Scrap the lawsuit. Just say no!

Like rats fleeing a sinking ship...

2006-01-18T18:05:00.000-06:00

Conservative columnist and erstwhile CNN commentator Robert Novak penned a column in last week's Chicago Sun-Times that was overtly critical of the Bush administration's Medicare prescription drug program. Yes, that would be the prescription drug program that Bush has touted among his very few "victories" on Capitol Hill. And that also would be the prescription drug program that is presently in the throes of a crisis in its first few weeks of implementation.

When Bob Novak is trashing a Republican administration, to say there are some chinks in the armor is a gross understatement. The rats are jumping ship, a sure sign that the USS Bush-Cheney is sinking at a rapid pace.

The hideous complexity of the scheme, which has the effect of discouraging seniors from signing up, is only the beginning of difficulties it entails for the president and his party. It will further swell the budget deficit without commensurate political benefits. On the contrary, the drug plan may prove a severe liability for Republicans facing an increasingly hazardous midterm election in November.

(...)

Rove's aim was to entice low-to-middle-income seniors who vote heavily Democratic and complain about the cost of prescription drugs. That political maneuver was translated by bureaucrats and health-care technicians into a government program so difficult to understand that someone receiving any prescription drug care would be inclined to stick with the present program even if it seems inadequate. For many whose existing insurance does not help pay drug bills, the Bush program is only a disappointment.

Another winner from Bush and his incompetents. The fun just never ends. These people are all about style and PR and getting elected, but they have absolutely no clue how to govern or administer. The Bush administration - and I use that term very loosely - will go down in history as one of the most insanely inadequate bureaucracies in the 230 years of our nation's existence.

It almost makes one wonder if they're doing it on purpose in order to sour all Americans on our government. Could they intentionally be trying to look so utterly incompetent that we would have no other choice but to pare our federal government to the bone? With these people, anything is possible. And I mean ANYTHING!!

Guess who's coming to dinner?

2006-01-18T13:02:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, as noted below, was the 300th anniversary of Benjamin Franklin's birth. I've always been fascinated with Franklin. In fact, when one sometimes hears the question asked, "Which four people from history would you like to have over for dinner, if you could?", I've always known that Ben Franklin would be at the top of my list.

Which others would be on my list? That's difficult to answer. There are so many very interesting historical figures from which to choose. And it often might depend on what mood I'm in. Am I interested in learning more about politics, music, literature, art, sports, different periods, etc.? If I made an exhaustive list, I'd be entertaining every other evening!

I suppose my initial four invitees would be:

- Benjamin Franklin
- William Shakespeare
- John Lennon
- John F. Kennedy

A Ben, a Bill and a couple of Johns. I'd envision some lively and insightful discussion amongst the four of them. I'd just sit back and listen. What an evening that would be!

So, if given the chance, which four people from history would you choose to invite over for the evening?

Happy 300th Birthday, Benjamin Franklin!!

2006-01-17T15:51:00.000-06:00

Famous American patriot, statesman, philosopher and inventor Benjamin Franklin was born on this date (January 17) in 1706, in Boston, Massachusetts. Here is a brief synopsis of his accomplishments, as published at Who2.com:

Franklin is perhaps the single most multi-talented figure in American history. His accomplishments are too varied to fully describe here; they include signing the Declaration of Independence, publishing the famous Poor Richard's Almanac, serving as postmaster of Philadelphia, founding the first American fire insurance company, living in Paris as American ambassador to France, and inventing useful objects like the lightning rod, the Franklin stove, and bifocal glasses.

Franklin was a man whose insightful wisdom would be quite useful in the present day. Who knows what he would have thought of the Internet and blogging. As a publisher, no doubt, he would have been utterly fascinated by it.

In honor of the 300th anniversary of Ben Franklin's birth, let's reflect on just a few of his many wonderful quotes as we reside here in the year 2006:

-Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

-Do not squander time for that is the stuff life is made of.

-For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

-Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.

-Honesty is the best policy.

-In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.

-One today is worth two tomorrows.

-The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.

-The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance.

-There was never a good war, or a bad peace.

So let's all lift an ale's mug in remembrance of a truly great American. Cheers, Ben Franklin! And happy birthday, too!

Quote of the Day: "Freedom is crawling — over broken glass."

2006-01-16T20:40:00.000-06:00

That pessimistic quote - no doubt to the chagrin of the Bush administration - came from an anonymous State Department official, in stark contrast to President Bush's frequent contention that "freedom is on the march" in the Middle East.

Indeed, in spite of Bush's militaristic approach to forcing democracy on the Middle East, many countries actually are gravitating more closely toward Islamist-controlled governments. If you think about it, it's kind of like independent-minded teens who rebel against their parents (not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea). Many in the Middle East want nothing to do with the United States' presumptuous approach to how Middle Easterners should be governed. Even if many in the Middle East might prefer the democratic approach, as many likely would, that doesn't mean that they want others - in particular, the "holier than thou" Americans - telling them what to do.

President Bush's efforts to spread democracy to the Middle East have strengthened Islamists across the region, posing fresh challenges for the United States, according to U.S. officials, foreign diplomats and democracy experts.

Islamist parties trounced secular opponents in recent elections in Iraq and Egypt.

Hamas, the armed Islamic Palestinian group, appears set to fare well in Palestinian parliamentary elections Jan. 25, posing a quandary for how the United States and Israel pursue peace efforts. Hamas has carried out suicide bombings against Israel and calls for the country's destruction.

In Lebanon, the Shiite Muslim militia Hezbollah is part of the government for the first time.

Washington considers Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which have Iranian support, to be terrorist groups.

"In the short run, the big windfall winners ... have been the Islamists," said Michael McFaul, a Stanford University expert on democracy and development.

In the long run, democracy probably will lead to a more stable, economically flourishing Middle East, McFaul recently told a Washington conference. But, he added, "We're taking a chance."

Democracy isn't something that can be forced on others, especially those who are already suspicious of - or even downright hostile toward - anything that is espoused by the United States' government. Let's face it, in spite of what Bush, Cheney and company would like to believe, the U.S. doesn't have a good reputation in much of the world. And attempting to force something upon them isn't going to help matters much. In fact, it very likely is making things worse.

In a region renowned for governments dominated by religion and competing ethnic tribes for hundreds if not thousands of years, to force a radical, overnight change to something as foreign as democracy is nothing but a fantasy. And turning such a fantasy into reality will not come without an unbearable price - or wait - for decades, if not centuries, to come.

Perhaps the United States should try a different tack, like benevolence and diplomacy perhaps? Unfortunately, both concepts are about as foreign to the Bush administration as democracy is to those in the Middle East. Until we have a more astute administration in place, the gulf between fantasy and reality will remain virtually unbridgeable.