The Perfect Quote

I discovered this GREAT quote on a blog that I happened on by circumstance, and I just couldn't resist posting it here for all my loyal readers. I think it sums up modern politics beyond doubt--

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." --H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

I laughed out loud the first three times I read this!! Too much!

House GOP to Change Ethics Rules

The Republican members of the House of Representatives are planning to make it more difficult to begin ethics inquiries. At the present time, the rules require that an inquiry be held open if the Ethics Committee vote is tied--there is an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on the committee, so a tie vote would be presumed along party lines. The Republicans, however, would require that the vote must be a majority to keep an ethics inquiry open.

In addition, rumors suggest that House Speaker Dennis Hastert is considering replacing the Republican Ethics Committee chairman in 'retaliation' for the Committee's admonishments of Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay last year. The GOP has previously altered the party's stance on leadership positions so that DeLay could remain in his post in the event that he is indicted for election fraud charges in Texas. Prior to the revision of party rules, both the Republicans and Democrats held that any member of the House who was under indictment for any reason could not serve the party in a leadership position during the period of indictment.

It seems that the GOP is willing to alter its party rules and ethics rules for the House in order to protect a single individual--Rep. DeLay. Even the conservative group Judicial Watch seems to agree with that assessment, and they are in fact pressing the House to strengthen its ethics rules rather than going through with these plans that would significantly weaken, and essentially eliminate, any possible ethics violation investigations.

Would Privatized Social Security Pay More?

According to Stanley Logue, a defense-industry analyst who retired in 1994, the answer to that question for him would be a resounding 'NO'. Mr. Logue spent 45 years paying into the Social Security system and decided to calculate how much money he would have made had that money been invested in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends). His calculation showed that he made a small amount more in the Social Security system than he would have in the stock market--$261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873.

From the CSMonitor--

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

The fact that they didn't illustrates one of the hard truths about stock investing: Timing matters.

Mr. Logue missed much of the post-WWII boom in the stock market and retired prior to the bull market in the mid-1990s. This meant that he missed two of the most substantial gaining periods in the last fifty years. Although he did earn well during the mini-boom in the 1980s, much of that gain would have been lost in the market correction at the end of the decade. TIMING MATTERS--so don't let the Republican party convince you that privatization is all good. There are positives to privatization, but there are just as many negatives. The strength of the Social Security administration has been that it serves as retirement insurance and should be treated differently than a retirement investment.

Additionally, Paul Krugman has taken a respite from his sabbatical to write some columns in the NYTimes addressing the issue of the privatization of Social Security. He argues that Conservatives have made such an issue of privatization that we are all expected to believe by now that everything the government does leads to waste while all privatization saves money. With Social Security, Krugman argues that the opposite is true.

In looking at the two most notable examples of privatized national retirement plans--Chile and Britain--that the Conservatives repeatedly cite as positive examples, Krugman argues that the administrative costs of the investments are twenty times that of the current U.S. Social Security system. Krugman also points out that the plan in Chile for privatization was to reduce the national monetary burden, but in reality the national government has saved little over the last twenty-year period because too many retirees had not made enough money on their investments to provide a living that would be above the poverty level. As a result, the government was forced to provide additional funds to provide living expenses for these retirees.

Currently in England, a similar situation is occuring. The Brits privatized their retirement system during Margaret Thatcher's administration in the early 1980s. The Pensions Commission has recently announced that it expects quite a few retirees to have lost money through the privatized system, and the government should expect to spend additional monies over the next several years to keep those people out of poverty. Take the time to read these two Krugman articles--'Inventing a Crisis' and 'Buying into Failure'.

A Unique Perspective on bin Laden's Latest Audio

UMichigan professor of history Juan Cole takes an interesting perspective on the latest words of Osama bin Laden. He argues that by taking a position on the side of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist hated by Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, bin Laden has effectively "shot himself in the foot." Cole's argument is that bin Laden's only hope by taking such a position would be to turn the five million Sunni Muslims in Iraq into pro-al Qaeda, using many of them to increase the insurgency against the U.S.

However, not only has bin Laden taken the side of a hated killer, but he has also declared that any Muslim who takes part in the January Iraqi elections will be acting as an infidel because the Iraqi government does not currently recognize the Qu'ran as the basis of all law. This fatwa is in direct opposition to the ranking Shiite leader in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who declared that it is the duty of every Muslim in Iraq to take part in the election process, thereby giving the hand of Allah a direct role in the election of the new government.

Dr. Cole argues that taking this position on Iraq is a desparate move on the part of al Qaeda and bin Laden. It represents an extreme position in which he has willingly abandoned the Shiite population in hopes of recruiting a miniscule number of Sunni to his cause. Even most of the Sunni in Iraq, Cole argues, consider the Wahhabism of bin Laden an extreme and misguided form of Islam. As a result they are unlikely to follow the guidance of al Qaeda in any event, let alone now that bin Laden has sided with al-Zarqawi.

Cole presents an interesting point of view, but I am not entirely convinced, to be perfectly honest, that he has a clue what he is talking about. Certainly, bin Laden's position would help to bring about the civil war in Iraq between the Shiite and Sunni that al Qaeda and al-Zarqawi so greatly long to provoke. Any rhetoric that helps to divide the various groups within Iraq while at the same time making the United States military the enemy of them all would represent a worthy challenge to the oral skills of bin Laden. As with most events that have led us to this point, I think Professor Cole (as have many others) continues to underestimate the political and theological abilities of Osama bin Laden, and the unifying attributes of the al Qaeda banner.

Russia-China Alliance?

One must wonder what exactly is going on with Russia and China as they announced formally this week that they will be conducting joint military exercises during 2005. The two long-time enemies are apparently moving beyond their commercial enterprises (China is the majority trading partner for Russian military equipment) and into a tenuous alliance to prevent the United States from laying sole claim to the 'superpower' label. Both countries have long opposed a unilateral foreign policy structure with the U.S. at the top of the pyramid dictating policy to the rest of the world. Could this latest move be the means by which both countries, possibly in league with India also, establish their independence of U.S. foreign policy? Could it also be the means by which they remind Europe and the U.S. that they are also major players in the world economy, international trade, and international affairs of state? Much remains to be seen.

French Journalists Released from Captivity in Iraq

Two French journalists, Georges Malbrunot, 41, and Christian Chesnot, 38, were released from four months of captivity last week by their Iraqi captors--members of the insurgent group 'Islamic Army in Iraq'. Malbrunot, who writes for the conservative French newspaper Le Figaro, says that his captors wanted GWBush to win the U.S. Presidential election because they knew he would keep troops in Iraq, and that would help their cause.

Both men say that they saw some other hostages who they learned were later decapitated. The Islamic Army reportedly has 15,000-17,000 members, and their hostage-taking activities are very well organized. Some members are designated for planning, others for the kidnapping, and still others for interrogation or execution squads. According to the journalists, the Islamic Army sees four groups as its enemies--the U.S. and coalition military forces, foreign businessmen whom they consider collaborators of the military occupation, Iraqi police forces, and foreign and Iraqi spies.

Why the two journalists were set free while so many other hostages have been executed is unclear, but both men say that they were in fear for their lives throughout most of the four months of their captivities.

Commerce in Church--right or wrong?

Many churches, both Protestant and Catholic, are beginning to conduct commercial enterprises in the church to help raise money. Some churches have installed Starbucks, Subway, McDonald's, or other fast-food type ventures inside the church building in order to raise funds for the church coffers. Even more churches have begun leasing out their steeples for cell-phone tower usage. Companies like Verizon install their cell tower technology inside the church steeple rather than erecting a tower for the purpose. These companies pay the church as much as $10,000 each year in rental fees. Some parishioners are displeased with the idea of commercializing the church building while others see the move as good business practice. It seems the issue has become whether the church should be 'of the world' or 'apart from the world.' I have a feeling this type of enterprise will become (or continue to be) a significant issue for many church congregations from this point forward. Read an interesting overview of the positions and ongoing commercial activities at the CSMonitor.

Rumsfeld and the DoD are at it again

The Dept of Defense plans to move itself into the intelligence-gathering business. The plans include turning U.S. soldiers into 'boots-on-the-ground' agents. In fact, the DoD is willing to go so far as to instigate battles or even start a war in order to gather intelligence information from the resulting conflict. Is it just me, or does this plan seem just a bit askew?

Read Bob Herbert's commentary related to this plan in the 27 Dec NYTimes.

Newsworthy Issues with the Iraqi 'Elections'

After the United States announced earlier this week that, regardless of the outcome of the Iraqi elections, Sunni Muslims would be guaranteed a certain number of positions on the future Iraqi governing council, the leadership of the interim government spoke out against the plan. Their response echoed the thoughts of all Iraqis that the U.S. might be overstepping its bounds in guaranteeing any faction in the country a place in the government. The U.S. rhetoric is all about democracy and guaranteeing freedom, but when things look like they might not go exactly the way we want them to during the elections, we forget issues of freedom and self-government to focus instead on the outcome WE want. No wonder so many people of the world despise our policies. We promise freedom and democracy--but only if it satisfies our desires and plans. What a load of patronizing, self-serving, defeatist bullshit!!

Either we want to encourage freedom and democracy or we want an American-friendly government. 'WE CANNOT HAVE BOTH,' we would seem to say. Much of this division of thought apparently comes from the DoD and Sec Rumsfeld who once guaranteed that Iraq would NOT have an Islamic government--even if that is what the people want. How much more hubris can we spread throughout the world? How can we discuss 'freedom and democracy', put so much emphasis on those concepts, and then say that we will attempt to control the outcome or alter the rules to benefit us? How is that freedom OR democracy?

Now, not only are our appointed leaders speaking out against our latest plans, but the upcoming elections have given Osama bin Laden a topic on which to speak. In a recent audio tape played on Al Jazeera reportedly from bin Laden, he praises Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi calling him the 'prince' of al Qaeda in Iraq. He praises al-Zarqawi's decision to rename his organization 'al Qaeda in Iraq' and declare his allegiance to bin Laden saying that the decision represents "a great step on the path of unifying all the mujahedeen in establishing the state of righteousness and ending the state of injustice."

All quotations and information comes from related articles in the CSMonitor between 26 Dec and 27 Dec.

New Trend -- Latinas Converting to Islam

Of the 20,000 converts to Islam each year in the U.S., approximately 1,200 of those are Latinos with the majority being females. The trend seems to be occuring because the women see more respect coming from Islamic men than from most men that they encounter on a regular basis. They do not see the religion as demeaning women, but instead as making their roles more sacred and respected.

Many Americans view the Taliban and al Qaeda as typical examples of Islamic beliefs, but that is far from the truth. Most of the more demeaning aspects of Islam toward women that we see demonstrated on a regular basis are actually cultural manifestations that use extreme Islamic teachings as justification for misogynism.

Supreme Court May Consider Presidential Use of Recess Appointments of Federal Judges

Three federal appeals courts have ruled on the issue in the last several years, but the High Court has never considered the Constitutionality of the use of recess appointments. Recess appointments have been widely used by Presidents of both parties since the 1960s, but several considerations are up in the air. There are questions about whether the President can make recess appointments during the middle of Senate sessions or only at the intersession break in December and January. President Bush has made several intrasession appointments in addition to the typical intersession ones.

The three appellate court rulings have made broad interpretations of the Presidential power to circumvent the 'advice and consent' power of the Senate, and many Constitutional scholars question those decisions in light of the Constitutional requirements for checks and balances. The CSMonitor covers the topic in some depth in its 26 December online issue.

Teachers who care get most from kids

From an article in the Detroit News last June, survey results demonstrate that students respond better in class to teachers who set high demands on the students and who care about the students' lives and work ethics. The newspaper argues that these results point out that teachers who are given a greater deal of autonomy in the classroom are the ones who are most able to provide a caring and compassionate environment for their students. If too much top-down management occurs in a school, then the students are not likely to see the same levels of personal interaction and academic rigor from their teachers.

I always like to use this analogy--remember back to your own days in school and think about your favorite teacher's class. Tell me one thing that you remember about that class. The thing that you remember is most likely not related to what you were taught in that class as much as it is related to who that teacher was and how she/he interacted with you and the other students. THAT is what teaching is really all about.

Surely all effective teachers cover a great deal of material and teach their students as much as they can about the subject, but it is the non-academic things that stick out in our minds. It is the love of the class and the enjoyment of the teacher that build our memories of school. It is not the year in which Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, nor the year in which the Ottoman Turks began to lose their empire. The things we remember are the time that Mr. G had us make string art using our newfound knowledge of Geometry, or the fact that Mrs. C only had to call the first name on her roll and everyone automatically called HERE at the place their name would have been called (and the first time the class did that to the student-teacher!), or the time that Mr. M almost cussed in class because he tripped over the world map for the third time in ten minutes. THAT is the beauty of teaching AND of learning!!

Speaking of the Iraqi Elections...

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi announced this morning that he will run for the office in next month's elections. He says that he wants to unite the country and end the religious and ethnic divisions that have led to so many difficulties since the U.S. invasion of the country.

I may seem a bit cynical, but I have no doubt that Allawi will win this election. After all, the U.S.'s man in Afghanistan won the first-ever national election in that country. Why would not the U.S.'s man in Iraq also win election? The only possible upset might come from the Shiite clerics--either Moqtada al Sadr or Ali al-Sistani. If that happens, then all bets are off about the future of Iraq--of course, all bets might be long-shots regardless.

Some Taliban Ready to Give Up Their Guns and Go Home

Newly inaugurated Afghan president Hamid Kharzai is considering offering an amnesty to the majority of Taliban fighters. Some Taliban appear to be tired of fighting and may be willing to accept the offer of amnesty if they are allowed to return to their families and their land. In an interview with the CSMonitor, two Akhund tribesmen say that they have had enough. They now view the leadership of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden as an effort to consolidate their own power rather than as a means to lead a holy war to protect Muslim lands. Of course, there are other Taliban that follow Omar and bin Laden without question and believe it is their duty to insure that Afghanistan has an all-Muslim government.

The question becomes whether an amnesty for these 'moderate Taliban' will offer a way for Kharzai to consolidate his leadership of Afghanistan, or whether it will cause a deeper split between the Pashtuns and Tajiks. I imagine that fewer eyes will be on the outcome of these events than on the elections in Iraq, but the events in Afghanistan may be a better indicator of the eventual outcome of the 'War on Terrorism' than any events in Iraq.

Atheist Changes His Mind

A British philosophy professor who has been a leading advocate for the atheist position for nearly sixty years announced last week that he has changed his mind, and he says that his opinion changed based on scientific evidence. Of course, before anyone gets too carried away, I should also point out that he wants nothing to do with religion, and he does not believe in an after-life. He simply thinks that living things are much too complex to have evolved without some sort of help from a creator.

Antony Flew is now 81 years old and has been an atheist since the age of 15. He now says that his new position is somewhat similar to the 'intelligent design' position that has been advocated in the United States for several years. Flew further says that he would label himself now as a deist--he believes that God must exist, but he does not believe that God actively engages in our daily lives. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts that it can ever fully explain the origins of life.

Some people might argue that Flew is just getting old and a little nervous. Others would certainly say that he is finally coming to his senses. Personally, I think he is courageous to step forward at this stage in his life and contradict at least some of his lifelong beliefs. Read the full Associated Press report from MSNBC for additional information.

What are Math Teachers Worth?

Of course, as a high school mathematics teacher myself, I found this CSMonitor article particularly interesting. The article is an opinion piece written by Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., former chairman and CEO of IBM and founder of The Teaching Commission. His argument is that although we have a significant shortage of highly-qualified mathematics public school teachers, we are doing very little to alter the methods we use to recruit, train, and keep highly skilled mathematicians in the classrooms of the country.

Last week, a new comparative study showed that U.S. 15-year olds are well below the worldwide average for basic math skills, and a new TIMSS study to be released this week will discuss the skills of fourth- and eighth-graders. Certainly, educators know it is true that students with particularly gifted teachers perform better on average than students with less-than-adequate teachers. When 15% of high school mathematics teachers nationwide have neither a major or minor in mathematics, there is something terribly wrong with the system.

Speaking to you, however, as a very good mathematics instructor, I can state plainly that the problem tends to be one of motivation rather than one of instruction. It is a great deal easier for a knowledgeable math teacher to motivate students than for one who has difficulty with the subject himself/herself; however, we also need teachers who bring personal experiences with the use of mathematics into the classroom.

The most interesting thing I find about programs to recruit highly qualified mathematicians into education is that these programs typically only apply to new recruits. I have been a highly successful mathematics teacher for ten years, but most of the 'innovative' programs I have heard about would not give me any additional pay or similar incentives. I would most likely have to change jobs (either by district or state) to qualify for many of the incentives. Does this seem like a fair way to handle experienced educators? Certainly not.

If we are serious about altering the ways in which we pay teachers, then we should consider the fact that at the secondary level core area teachers (English, History, Science, and Mathematics) receive the same pay as any other teacher who is at the same level of experience (Physical Education, Family Life and Consumer Sciences, or Keyboarding). All of these teachers are essential parts of the school, and the school could not function properly without each of them; however, if we are saying that pay scales should be changed, then should we not start with this distinction. People cite the need to identify 'high-needs' areas--where there are shortages of teachers--such as mathematics, science, and special education--as the starting point for distinguishing a new pay scale. If we make these distinctions, then how do we justify the important role of music teachers, art teachers, technical or skills teachers, or foreign language teachers to the students. How do we say to a group of teachers that "you are not as important to our children as this other group of teachers"? or do we say instead that "the core area teachers are more important to the future of our society than other teachers"? If we say these things, are any of them true?

OPEC to Decrease Production

Now that we are all seeing a moderation in gasoline prices, OPEC announced last week that it will decrease production by one million barrels a day beginning Jan. 1 to help curb its losses as a result of the weakening US dollar. So, you see, not only will gasoline cost US consumers more at the pump because the dollar is declining in world currency markets, but since the dollar is declining in world currency markets, gasoline will cost US consumers more at the pump. It all sounds highly logical to me--how about you?

Turns out that although OPEC could not control oil prices (to make them decline) throughout October and November as the price of a barrel of oil surged higher than at any time in 25 years, they CAN control it (so that prices go up) from now at least through the end of winter when US consumers will need the greatest amounts of oil. Amazing how that works out so well for them, isn't it?

Of course, OPEC's decision to cut production follows the sharpest decline in oil prices in some time, as a barrel of oil has dropped from $55 a barrel in October to around $40 last week. Keep in mind, however, that OPEC has promised the world markets a stabilized price at around $35 a barrel. Perhaps OPEC sees this move as a way to help stop the rapid decline and as a means to level off prices at that stable $35, but the move seems just as likely to add additional revenue to OPEC purses as the Northern Hemisphere approaches the long, cold, dark days of winter.

My prediction is that the United States will never again see the price of a gallon of gasoline drop below $1.50, and we will be lucky to see a national average at $1.85 a gallon. Get used to these prices America. As China becomes a bigger player in the world economy, and as the Chinese populace increases consumption of oil products--particularly gasoline for their growing automobile population--the United States will continue to see high demand for oil worldwide. As Detroit continues to build large SUVs and the high cost of hybrid technology continues to boost the price and discourage production of more environmental-friendly vehicles, the U.S. supply of oil will continue to diminish.

We need an administration that is more focused on ending dependency on foreign oil through alternative means rather than continually pushing for the development of oil fields in ANWAR. The United States cannot produce enough oil to offset the amount we currently import from OPEC (or even from Saudi Arabia), so why do we continue to focus our efforts on such a plan? Oh, that's right...the oil companies have the Congress and the Executive branch in their pockets!!

New Homeland Security Appointee Steps Down

Reports today are that Bernard Kerik stepped down as the Homeland Security Secretary-designate because at some time in his past he had employed an illegal alien as a housekeeper. Apparently, this came as a surprise to him. He said in his statement that he did not know until recently that she had been illegally in the country. According to the White House, however, his appointment was in question soon after the announcement was made. The vetting process either was not complete when the announcement was made, or the White House failed to conduct a complete background check. Either way, I remain dumbfounded that the appointment was not Rudy Guiliani to begin with!!!

Rumsfeld's Answer

"You go to war with the army you have, not the one you want."

That was Donald Rumsfeld's answer to a soldier who questioned the U.S. lack of armored HumVees in Iraq. My response to Sec. Rumsfeld would be this--

How long have we been at war? Almost two years? Is that not enough time to increase the production of armored personnel transports? Is that not enough time to ship them overseas? Is that not enough time to make certain that our troops have what is needed for them to complete the mission that your administration sent them to conduct?

It is one thing to say that we must GO to war with the army that we have, but it is another issue entirely to say that we cannot improve that army DURING war. Of course, what Rumsfeld, or President Bush, will not want to say is that it is not an issue of time that has stopped us from producing better armored vehicles, nor is it an issue of time that has prevented us from shipping better transportation to Iraq. The issue that limits the US's ability to conduct this war is one of MONEY. Thanks to Mr. Bush's two tax cuts (one DURING this war), and the lack of improvement in our economy, our government (in particular, the Dept of Defense) does not have the necessary funds to conduct a full-scale war and provide our troops with the proper equipment to get the job done. At one point in this war, our soldiers were even running low on ammunition.

A nation might GO to war with the army it has, but it had better make damn sure that it comes out of the war with the army it needs. The only way to accomplish that is through money, time, and effort on the part of the government and its people. The only problem in this case is that we need leaders who are willing to say and do the RIGHT things to make that happen and not to just follow ideological goals to unjustified ends.

U.S. to add 10,000-11,000 more troops in Iraq to help support efforts in Fallujah and with January elections

Gen. John Abizaid says that soldiers and Marines currently in Iraq will have to extend their tours of duty, and those who are rotating to Iraq will have to leave the U.S. earlier than expected. In related news, reports show that more new recruits are going through infantry training regardless of the specialty for which they signed up. Apparently, all new recruits are learning infantry responsibilities either in lieu of or in addition to their specialties. Further, all of these new recruits can expect to spend part of their enlistments in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

News reports also indicate that because of a shortage of staff officers, particularly Majors and Lt. Colonels, several Pentagon staffers have been reassigned to duties in Iraq to fill urgent vacancies. The war on Iraq is quickly becoming a demanding exercise for the U.S. military. Some reports indicate that the Army and Marines have been as creative as possible in assigning and reassigning troops.

With the addition of the 10,000 new troops in Iraq, the U.S. military presence will become nearly 150,000 strong. The U.S. is making every effort to emphasize to other hostile (or potentially hostile) nations that the U.S. is NOT stretched too thin in Iraq. However, actions and protestations tend to indicate otherwise. "Methinks he doth protest too much."

Read more details in the CSMonitor's "Terrorism and Security Daily Update" from 29 Nov 2004.

'Intelligent Design' approved to be taught in Pennsylvania school district

Many scientists see the 'Intelligent Design' theory as a means for evangelical Christians to get Creationism returned to the Biology classroom and textbook. The most amazing fact cited in this San Francisco Chronicle article is the result of a poll conducted by CBS news that found only 35% of Americans believe that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution. Is it just me, or are 65% of those polled completely blinded by religious indoctrination?

Hamas Will Boycott Palestinian Elections

Hamas, the extremist Islamist Palestinian faction, made a formal announcement on Wednesday that they would boycott the January 9 elections to replace Yasser Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas also boycotted the elections in 1996 that first elected Yasser Arafat to the office of president. Hamas believes that Palestine should not negotiate with Israel, and faulted Arafat for giving in to pressure to bargain and deal with the Israeli government in efforts to move the peace process forward.

The current leader in the election polls, Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen) and acting president of the PA since the death of Arafat on November 11, is scheduled to meet with leaders of Hamas next week in Damascus. Abbas was nominated by the Fatah party, currently the more moderate of the Palestinian leadership groups and the party of Arafat, and apparently has a close relationship with Hamas. In addition to agreeing to meet with Abbas, Hamas announced that it would not attack Israel during the election period, and would consider a truce with Israel to end its part in the most recent intifada. As I have posted in this blog previously, I believe that Hamas largely controls the hearts and minds of the people of Palestine already--they have shown themselves not only to fight for Palestinian independence, but also to offer humanitarian assistance, medical care, and security for local Palestinian communities.

In another interesting development in the race for president of the PA, another Fatah candidate declared himself this week. Marwan Barghouti, in jail for the murder of two Israeli government officials (two life sentences, I believe), announced this week through associates that his name would appear on the ballot. Barghouti represents a younger generation of the Fatah party, and is largely seen as a pivotal character among Palestinians in their twenties and thirties. It seems that he represents many of the same policies as Hamas, but he operates within Fatah, the major political movement that grew out of the Palestine Liberation Organization as it evolved into the Palestinian Authority. It would certainly be interesting to watch events unfold if he were to run the PA from inside an Israeli prison!!!

"They hate our policies, not our freedom"

The Defense Science Board, a Federal advisory committee, consisting of 32 appointed members and seven ex officio members, established to provide independent advice to the SecDef, released its September 2004 report about U.S. worldwide communication and public relations efforts in the 'War on Terrorism' to the public this past week. The report had been available on the DSB website in early November, but I find it curious that it was not released until after the election. Could it be that it was not released until now because it is critical of the President's policies? Yes, it could!

In fact, the DSB report takes the administration to task for its failure to live up to its rhetoric. The report is highly critical of the administration's use of the language of freedom and democracy while at the same time supporting Muslim governments that are perceived as tyrannical throughout the Middle East region.

'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report
says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as
one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the
long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as
tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf
states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to
Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'

To read more about this significant contribution to the debate about the War on Terrorism, see the CSMonitor's "Terrorism and Security Daily Update" for Monday, 29 November 2004.

The Grinch Makes Interesting California Appearance

In a posh suburb of San Jose called Monte Sereno, one neighborhood house owned by Alan and Bonnie Aerts drew up to 1500 visitors per night last year between Thanksgiving and Christmas to view their Christmas decorations. Apparently, the house had some rather extravagant decorations--perhaps costing as much as $150,000, and supported by additional electricity feeds from the local energy company, Pacific Gas & Electric. Another couple in the neighborhood decided that they had seen enough; they took a complaint petition to the city council signed by 90 residents of Monte Sereno. The council decided to require individuals to obtain a permit for all extravagant house decorations.

Rather than go through the elaborate permit application process, the extravagant decorations stayed in storage this year and the Aertses instead erected a sixteen-feet tall Grinch that points at their neighbors' house (the same neighbors who complained about their decorations) and sings part of the Mr. Grinch song. Mr. Aerts says that his neighbors have dampened the Christmas spirit. Read the full story here.

I have to say that the Aertses seem incredibly selfish in spite of the fact that they used their decorations last year to raise nearly $10,000 for the Toys for Tots program. If they had just donated the $150,000 to charity, they would have accomplished much more for the Toys for Tots program and would have limited the alienation between themselves and their neighbors. Just because you like decorations does not mean that your neighbors do. Why should you impose your personal experience of the season on those around you? Put the decorations indoors.

I'm happy to say that I would be proud to have the giant Grinch pointing at me. Christmas has become more about 'what am I getting' that about friends, family, and celebration of community. Shopping between Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve has become the loudest, most rude, most annoying experience on the face of the Earth. As Christmas approaches, I become more ill-tempered, short-tempered, and easily annoyed than at any other time during the year. Generally, I am ready to celebrate Christmas on about January 14th--once my neighbors and family members settle back into normal, polite, kind, considerate, and loving personas. This year will be even worse since I already know that my one wish for Christmas--a new President--will have to wait four more years to come true!

I hope everyone at least had a nice Thanksgiving!

Molly Ivins On Some of the Latest Moves by the Republican Machine

In her November 23 syndicated column, Molly Ivins lists several of the most egregious recent moves by the Republicans that already have her worried about the next four years. She lists not only the moves by Bush to ensure that his cabinet is filled with loyal people rather than competent ones, but also the most recent moves by the Republicans in the House and Senate to add pork items and agenda items to the last-minute omnibus budget bill.

The most interesting comments, however, she saves for the Republican attack dogs. Specifically, those Republicans who are going after the Texas District Attorney responsible for indicting House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for his illegal election practices. I'll quote the signficant paragraphs below, but you can read the entire column here. (The column is available several other places, including your local newspaper.)

It's really fascinating to watch the Republican slime machine at work on Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle. Earle is one of the longest-serving district attorneys in the entire country. His constituents have been re-electing him since 1976. He was one of the first prosecutors in Texas to create a victim assistance program and helped start the Austin Children's Advocacy Center to help abused kids.

He's pretty much a local hero around here, and no D.A. gets that way by being "soft on crime." Earle is a death penalty advocate. He is also noted for going after corrupt Democratic politicians in this state, even though he's a Democrat himself. He was willing not only to take on the slam-dunk cases, but also some tough ones just to remind everybody that the law is to be obeyed.

Earle is such a careful craftsman of prosecution that Time magazine selected him as their main example for a major 2003 article to explain how DAs like Earle might bring some resolution to the death penalty debate. Earle has experienced both the good and bad of the death penalty -- consequently, he has a special review procedure for cases on which his office seeks capital punishment.

He is widely admired among his peers, and his innovations are often copied. This is the guy the Republicans are blithely dismissing as a "crackpot." Since Earle has been in office almost 30 years and has a fine national reputation, it's ludicrous to dismiss him as a "runaway district attorney." Does anyone at Fox News ever do any research?

[Just a personal comment in answer to that last question---uh, NO!!!! Duh!!]

Bob Herbert Discusses the Bush Administration 'Incompetents'

I find it ironic that the group who came to the White House claiming that "the adults are back in charge" in reaction to the Clinton administration may represent the most inept policy leaders in the history of the United States. (If you don't believe that this administration has no real concept of how to create policy or how to justify it, you need only read Ron Suskind's account of Paul O'Neill's tenure as SecTreas, The Price of Loyalty, or Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack. I imagine Christie Todd Whitman's book could shed some light on the subject as well, but I have not read it myself. I also anxiously await the books by Colin Powell and Rich Armitage.)

In a recent Op-Ed column in the NYTimes, Bob Herbert (thanks for the link Joan) writes about the incompetence of this administration. He discusses the fact that the Bush White House largely chooses to ignore the sage advice of experienced professionals who have spent decades in public service while relying heavily on relative new-comers to the political process.

Mr. Herbert talks about Condoleezza Rice's experience. She was a student of the first President Bush's National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft. Unfortunately for her, she didn't take his advice in the lead-up to the war on Iraq. Scowcroft argued very publicly that Iraq most likely did NOT have WMDs nor that they were prepared to make them any time soon. Again, sage advice went unaccepted by the Bush administration. Even Bush himself was unwilling to seek advice from his father or his father's key foreign policy advisors.

Mr. Herbert writes--

As I watch the disastrous consequences of the Bush policies unfold - not just in Iraq, but here at home as well - I am struck by the immaturity of this administration, whatever the ages of the officials involved. It's as if the children have taken over and sent the adults packing. The counsel of wiser heads, like George H. W. Bush, or Brent Scowcroft, or Colin Powell, is not needed and not wanted.

Some of the world's most important decisions - often, decisions of life and death - have been left to those who are less competent and less experienced, to men and women who are deficient in such qualities as risk perception and comprehension of future consequences, who are reckless and dangerously susceptible to magical thinking and the ideological pressure of their peers.

I look at the catastrophe in Iraq, the fiscal debacle here at home, the extent to which loyalty trumps competence at the highest levels of government, the absence of a coherent vision of the future for the U.S. and the world, and I wonder, with a sense of deep sadness, where the adults have gone.

When they came to office, the Bush administration came with the cry, "The adults are back in charge!" Mr. Herbert writes here that in fact, the immature children are in charge, and the adults have not been consulted! Regardless of one's opinion of the Clinton administration, I think it is clear that at least his team knew how to make policy and how to successfully adminstrate. Some lessons this administration could learn for themselves.

Republicans in the House Block Floor Vote on 9-11 Commission Recommendations

During the last day of the lameduck session of Congress on Saturday, Republican members of the House of Representatives blocked a floor vote on legislation that would have enacted the major provisions of the 9-11 Commission Report, including the creation of a National Director of Intelligence who would have monetary control over all intelligence agencies. The move came largely as a result of close ties by these members to the Pentagon. The Pentagon currently controls 80% of intelligence funds, and most military leaders want to keep things status quo. The Republicans moved to block the vote in the House despite calls yesterday from both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney urging them to vote on the bill. (See the NYTimes for more.)

The Republicans who blocked this vote were re-elected in November, and apparently are 'feeling their oats' if they are willing to block legislation that has been requested, even demanded, by the American people. The citizens of this country want to see action taken and want to see changes made to an apparently inept organizational structure that allows inter-agency competition rather than demanding cooperation. The people of the United States deserve better from their elected representatives, and it would be in the best interest of the public to have detailed information about who is responsible for blocking this vote in the House. The move to block the vote has killed the legislation until the next session of Congress, and will put off an intelligence realignment at least until the middle of next year.

Could it be that the Republican leadership is largely to blame for this move? Speaker Dennis Hastert has been a some-time critic of the 9-11 Commission Report, and has said in the past that a realignment of the intelligence agencies is unnecessary, and that moving monetary control away from the Pentagon could mean that troops on the ground would not have the immediate intelligence they might need to fight the enemy. The only place this argument comes from is the Pentagon, as other experts and agencies argue that the resources are in place and this move would not disrupt any intelligence operations. Hastert has decided to keep Congress in session through the Christmas recess in the event that committee members want to continue work on the bill, and in the event that the legislation could come up for a vote--we all know this is nothing more than a tool of appeasement.

Isn't it strange that many people voted for Bush (and one would assume for other Republicans) because of their apparent support for the War on Terrorists; and yet, many of these very same Republicans are standing in the way of significant change that could help to prevent another attack on this country. Republicans--tough on terrorists, or tough on average America?

Dollar continues to fall against foreign currencies

Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and Rodrigo Rato, head of the International Monetary Fund, both spoke out on Thursday about the significance of the drop in the value of the dollar versus other currencies worldwide. On Friday, the euro was trading at nearly one euro for $1.30 (approaching a record value) and traded against the Japanese yen at a four-and-a-half year low. For most Americans, the dropping value of the dollar compared with the euro is not significant because most products we buy are not made in Europe. On the other hand, the decrease in the dollar's worth compared with the yen is very significant for American consumers. Many of the products sold in the U.S. are produced in Japan and China. Fortunately for consumers, the Chinese yuan is tied directly to the dollar; however, if the Chinese feel that the dollar is becoming too devalued, they may decide to peg the yuan to the euro (the strongest currency on the world market at present). If that happens, Americans will see a tremendous increase in the cost of goods that are produced in China.

Both Greenspan and Rato put the blame for the devaluing of the dollar on world markets with rising annual budget deficits in the United States. The budget deficit of the United States government is funded largely by foreign investment. As these foreign investments increase, the U.S. economy must respond in order to slow down inflation. Apparently (keep in mind I am NOT knowledgable in these things, but this is Greenspan's take on things), there are four ways to help control this international monetary imbalance--the U.S. government can reduce federal budget deficits to reduce foreign investment and boost domestic savings, the world monetary trade system can continue to drive the value of the dollar down which will increase the effective costs of repaying debt for the federal government--essentially increasing the annual percentage rate on money that we borrow to run the government, the U.S. could reduce domestic investment, or the U.S. could induce a recession to suppress consumption. Greenspan suggests that the last two options are not viable long-term solutions, and that allowing world monetary policies to control the imbalance will lead to higher interest rates in the U.S., a trend that Greenspan suggests is already beginning.

Rato takes a similar look at the budget deficit in the U.S. According to the Financial Times, Rato "stepped up calls for the US to take action to correct its current account deficit, saying a change in policy was 'needed to avoid getting into a traumatic situation'."

Notice that both of these men are discussing dire consequences for the U.S. economy if things are not done to offset budget deficits. If the policies of the Bush administration continue as they have for its first four years, the United States will be facing significantly negative economic conditions. If things do not change in the coming months, I hope that all of you 'moral issues' voters who voted for GWBush for one or two reasons will remember that the economy is also a moral issue!! If the Bush administration continues its misguided policies, perhaps you should ask yourself during the 2006 Congressional and Senate elections which party has been a better steward of the U.S. economy, which party has done more to put (and keep) money in the pockets of working Americans, and which party has done more to insure that this country is strong economically (and not just militarily) throughout the world! (By the way, the answer to all of those questions is NOT the neo-fasci-con Republican party. The moderate wing of the Republican party and the Democratic party both offer fiscal constraint and policies that promote growth, a strong dollar, consumption-related tax cuts, and reduced budget deficits.)

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few!!

Republicans move to protect DeLay from ethics violations

The Republican members of the House of Representatives moved this week to weaken the ethics requirements for leaders in the House. During the early 90s, Tom DeLay led an effort to require members of Congress to step down from leadership positions while they are facing investigations or charges related to ethics violations. This move in the 90s was primarily aimed at Democratic Representative Dan Rostenkowski, who was facing charges of fund-raising ethics violations. Now that Tom DeLay is facing the same kinds of charges, which the Republican party insists are politically motivated, the Republicans in the House have passed new ethics standards that would exempt leaders from the old requirements if the charges are filed in STATE courts. Is there any coincidence that Tom DeLay, Republican majority leader in the House, is currently facing an indictment for exactly those types of charges in his home state of Texas?

So let's summarize--the man (DeLay) who led the fight to have strict ethics standards implemented for Congressional leaders is now receiving an exemption from those standards so that he can retain his post as majority leader even if he is indicted for illegal fund-raising activities in Texas. Hmmmmmmmm.....I remember reading somewhere that the Republicans love the old adage, "To the victors go the spoils."

Russia to Unveil New Nuclear Weapon

From this report in the Moscow Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced yesterday that Russia is only a couple of years away from full deployment of a unique nuclear armament. Further details are few and far between, but the jist of the information seems to be that the Russians have made a substantial advancement in at least one of their ICBM programs. The question then arises, "why would they be interested in developing more advanced ICBMs when the greatest threat Russia will face (just as the U.S.) in the coming years will be the threat of terrorist attacks, and NOT of nuclear missile launches?" The answer to that, according to the story, is that the Russians feel that they must 'keep up' with the U.S. development of its nuclear weaponry, and it development of a 'missile shield' program.

Okay, again, let's get this information straight. Although we have become begrudging 'friends' with Russia, we remain nuclear enemies. The Russians still believe that in order to be completely secure they must not turn their backs on the development of a nuclear arsenal to rival that of the United States. Just a little reminder from me at this point--the U.S. 'missile shield' DOES NOT WORK, and will require some significant 'miracles' to work any time in the next forty or fifty years!!!!!

Another great website for Depressed Democrats

A friend sent this along to my email, and I thought I would share it with my 'multitude' of readers. It is not quite as cathartic as the previous slideshow about the Bush administration, but it does offer some excellent tips for those of us who believe we will be 'suffering' through another four years of the Bush administration. (And if you don't think we--the general consumer--will be suffering through another four years, have you looked at the strength of the dollar lately? Can you say 'inflation'? Either we reduce deficits, or everything we buy will be costing us substantially more. Do we really believe this administration is capable of lowering the deficit? Think about it....seriously!!)

Anyway, I digress. Enjoy the 'Tips for Depressed Democrats'.

Okay, okay...I see what it is. When you are a leader, you should have NO dissenting opinions among any of the people who work for you. You move out (or in most cases FORCE out) those people who do not agree with every aspect of your policy. Anyone who cannot toe the line and repeat the soundbite of the day MUST go!!

Look at the history so far of this administration--Paul O'Neill, Bush's first SecTreas, disagreed with Bush's demand for tax cuts and he was asked to resign; John Ashcroft, AG, toed the line pretty well, but he was a maverick who could not be trusted to hold a press conference so he was repleced with a close personal friend of President W; now, Colin Powell, SecState, and his deputy Rich Armitage have resigned from their positions at the State Department, largely because they did not agree with Bush's foreign policy, only to be replaced with Condi Rice who could not successfully run the National Security Council but is a good 'yes-woman'. The replacement for Condi as the NSA will be Stephen Hadley, another good neo-fasci-con who many consider a Cheney lieutenant.

As I say, apparently the plan is to consolidate all power so that every decision--from foreign to domestic policy, from military to legal affairs, from economic to social planning--emanates from the White House (i.e. Karl Rove's office), or at least from the Old Executive Office Building (i.e. Dick Cheney's office)!

I have heard Bush's power structure compared to that of the Prime Minister of Britain. Bush (or Rove in his stead) can influence the Senate and House Republican leadership (and has done so on numerous occasions), and will now be able to directly influence not only the DoD but the Department of State and the CIA. We should ALL be asking questions about the direction this administration is heading, but I want each of you to pay attention to the actions from now until about next June. An 'I told you so' may be in order by then!

Nicholas Kristof Writes About a New Approach to Gun Safety

I encourage everyone to read the latest commentary by Nicholas Kristof, appearing today in the NYTimes. He writes about some novel approaches, as well as some reborn approaches, to making handguns safer. He argues that gun control issues are not likely to be passed, and gun control candidates are not likely to be elected; however, all people--whether gun owners or not--are more willing to consider gun safety laws. Laws that childproof loaded guns, that make it easier to tell if a gun is loaded, and that make it more difficult for non-owners to fire the gun.

Alberto Gonzales--a kinder gentler AG??

The CSMonitor writes that the selection of Alberto Gonzales as the replacement for outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft represents a moderate approach to the position by the President. Following on the heels of Ashcroft, the outspoken voice of the religious right and former Congressman, Gonzales has some significant fences to mend. The Justice Department currently faces any number of legal battles that are a direct result of the actions taken by Ashcroft during the last two years of his tenure. The Monitor asserts that Gonzales is a moderate Republican with a mild demeanor who will not be a "polarizing figure" like Ashcroft.

Let me get this straight, the White House counsel who signed off on allowing TORTURE of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq will not be a polarizing figure as Attorney General? According to a Gonzales draft memo, he referred to some of the Geneva Conventions on prisoner treatment as "quaint" with regards to our war on Iraq, and he played a direct role in a Justice Department memo from 2002 that argued torture of terrorists might be allowable under certain circumstances. He has played down both of these memos because he says neither guided the eventual policy established by the DoD. Thank God!!

Most commentators see the appointment of Gonzales to AG as helpful to Bush in two ways. First, by appointing an Hispanic to the position, Bush will continue to push the diversity of his cabinet. Second, Gonzales is a close personal friend of Bush who will provide some level of cooperation between the Executive office and law enforcement, much like Bobby Kennedy provided for JFK, or Ed Meese provided for Reagan. Ashcroft may have been too much of a loose canon, not necessarily on the same page at all times as the administration. Further, Ashcroft was well established with the religious right, whose appointment helped Bush keep those leaders happy. This appointment may also help to keep the religious right happy. Having Gonzales appointed AG may keep him from being appointed to the Supreme Court. If he truly is a moderate Republican, the religious right would surely prefer he be Attorney General than be a Supreme Court Justice.

The real question remains, will Democrats be able to focus enough attention on the prisoner and torture issues to call his confirmation into question?

The C.I.A. versus GWBush

In his column today in the NYTimes, David Brooks writes about the apparent rift between the CIA and GWBush. He argues that the CIA has become an outspoken opponent of the President's foreign policy, especially with regards to the war on Iraq and various intelligence-gathering and intelligence-analysis issues. Brooks discusses the leaks and off-the-record comments supposedly from key CIA positions leading up to the election. Shouldn't we be concerned that an independent organization like the CIA would be so willing to speak out against the sitting President? Shouldn't it matter that this organization, apparently as a WHOLE, disagrees with the way this President uses and abuses our nation's intelligence process? Brooks is only concerned with how the President can bring the CIA back into line--who he has to punish, and who must be fired in order to restore allegiance to the CIA agenda.

The problem with that argument is that Mr. Bush has done nothing to instill confidence or loyalty in the agents and managers of the CIA. Not only has he blamed the CIA for both 9/11 and the missing WMDs in Iraq, but he appointed a right-wing congressman, Porter Goss, to lead the organization. This congressman, although he has personal experience as an agent, has apparently brought his congressional staffers with him to Langley. Does Mr. Goss really expect life-long CIA agents who have always tried to support the President's policies--liberal or conservative--to take orders from neo-conservative policy wonks who are used to dealing with members of Congress? Does the President really feel that he has ingratiated himself to an organization that has gotten nothing but blame from the administration?

On top of all of this division between the President and the CIA, one of the President's most outspoken critics, 'Anonymous' who wrote Imperial Hubris, has gone public and quit his job at the CIA. I have mentioned previously in this forum that 'Anonymous' has been widely known to be Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden group. His opinions have made recent appearances in the Senate confirmation hearings for Porter Goss and are published in this month's The Atlantic Monthly. The article appears in the 'Verbatim' section under the title, "How Not to Catch a Terrorist."

Scheuer argues that it was not inadequate budgets, legal barriers between CIA and FBI, nor organizational structure that prevented our success against Osama bin Laden (before and after 9/11), but was instead the irresponsibility, arrogance, bad judgment, bad decisions of senior Intelligence Community bureaucrats. He lists ten instances in The Atlantic Monthly article in which decisions by these bureaucrats "have been at the core of our failure against Bin Laden."

According to Scheuer:
---The CIA knew as early as mid-1996 that al-Qaeda was seeking to obtain nuclear materials. This information was suppressed within CIA and then published in a shortened form.
---There were several instances in which the CIA was unable to secure the assistance or cooperation of either the US Military or other key intelligence agencies in either gathering information or in conducting operations to disrupt al-Qaeda activities. (Much of this information corroborates Richard Clarke's assertions that the US Military refused to help plan operations that might have captured or killed Osama bin Laden in the years between 1997 and 1999.) Scheuer suggests that in one such instance, another intelligence agency removed a key member of a planning group leading up to an operation in a foreign city. Later in that same foreign city, al-Qaeda destroyed U.S. facilities in the area.
---There were several opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden through military means, but these were always stopped because "intelligence was not good enough." Scheuer points to two opportunities in particular, one in which bin Laden was at "a desert hunting camp used by wealthy Gulf royals" that we could have attacked militarily, and another in which we had an excellent chance to capture bin Laden. "[A]n operation which showed no U.S. hand, risked no U.S. lives, and was endorsed by senior commanders of the Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg." Apparently, this operation was cancelled "because senior officials from the Agency, the Executive Branch, and other Intelligence Community components decided to accept assurances from [an unreliable and untrustworthy] Islamic country that it could acquire Bin Laden from the Taleban."
---In June 1999, Scheuer moved to a new position and away from the bin Laden group. As part of his move, he made recommendations in a memo to his superiors regarding steps to be taken to improve the performance of the group specially tasked to counter al-Qaeda. Among these recommendations, he cited: "insufficient or no support from other Intelligence Community components," issues of the "grossly insufficient numbers of experienced officers assigned to the Bin Laden unit," and the "mediocre performance of our western allies - especially in Western Europe - in supporting U.S. efforts against Bin Laden."
---As of September 2004, "there are fewer Directorate of Operations officers with substantive expertise on al-Qaeda than there were on 11 September 2001" serving in the bin Laden operational unit. "There has been no systematic effort to groom al-Qaeda expertise among Directorate of Operations officers since 11 September ... The excellent management team now running operations against al-Qaeda has made repeated, detailed, and on-paper pleas for more officers to work against the [sic] al-Qaeda -- and have done so for years, not weeks or months -- but have been ignored."

Scheuer sums up his argument with these words: "The pattern of decision-making I have witnessed ... seems to indicate a want of moral courage, an overwhelming concern for career advancement, or an abject inability to distinguish right from wrong." These are strong words from a man who has spent years trying to understand and stop Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Can we as a nation choose not to heed his warnings and analysis? According to the CSMonitor article linked above, Scheuer has resigned his position within the CIA. He said in Imperial Hubris that if things did not change, he would be forced to take more drastic steps than simply writing books. Apparently, he has decided to become a public figure in the fight to stop al-Qaeda, and in the fight to protect America from mis-management and what he calls a want of moral courage. I think we all need to listen more carefully to what men and women like him have to say, even if we do not always agree with them.

Questions About the Outcome of the Election

There continue to be issues regarding the outcome of this year's election. Certainly, there are many questions about the appropriate use of electronic voting machines, and in my mind there must be some effort made to create a paper trail system to allow recounts if necessary. Why not create a redundancy system in which votes are tallied electronically, a paper 'scan-tron' ballot is printed, and that ballot is then scanned by another machine to create a 'back-up' vote count in the event some failure of the electronic system occurs. Further, the paper ballots create a means for allowing recounts in close elections.

I have no doubt that there were many unfortunate incidents in this year's election that could cast doubt on the results; however, I believe it is essential that we try to fix the voting process for the future rather than question whether something terrible may have happened this year. The election is over, and whether your candidate was John Kerry, Ralph Nader, another third-party candidate, or a write-in candidate, we must accept the countable totals and attempt to prepare for the major elections in 2006 and 2008. A more effective and useful system MUST be in place by that time; we cannot be overly concerned with the results this time--can we honestly believe that over 3 million votes were counted incorrectly or discarded? I'm just not sure we can.

Significant Arctic Climate Change May Force Bush's Hand on Environmental Policy

In an article from the CSMonitor (as many of you know, one of my favorite newspapers), a group of international climate experts released a report, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, on Monday (11/8/2004) suggesting that "global warming is heating the Arctic at a rapid pace." This report indicates that glaciers are melting at a rapid pace, that Arctic temperatures are increasing at twice the rate of the global average, and a 20 percent reduction in the summer ice pack on the Arctic Ocean in the last 30 years. The study was assembled over a four-and-a-half-year period and includes input from over 300 scientists from leading polar-research centers, and experts on arctic climate from eight countries and at least six independent organizations.

This report comes on the heels of the signing of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Kyoto agreement requires signatories to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 5.5% between 2008 and 2012. The Bush administration has refused to participate in the Kyoto agreement, and many commentators believe the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and a new report from the Pew Center for Climate Research will push the President to take more significant measures to curb CO2 emissions during his second term.

Another option that seems viable would be a proposal that was initially suggested by former EPA administrator Christie Whitman and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill (both quietly removed from those positions in the Bush administration). Ms. Whitman and Mr. O'Neill suggested addressing the measurable quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere rather than addressing the issue of emissions (which can be a less-measurable quantity). The Bush administration, largely through the leadership of Vice-President Dick Cheney and his work with the top-secret energy advisory commission, has neglected to address environmental quality standards, or to make any effort to significantly reduce any of the known factors that contribute to the 'global-warming' issue.

A**HOLE -- A Filmstrip About the Bush Years

For those of you who are as upset by last week's election outcome as I am, I offer a bit of humor that was sent to me by a dear friend. Please be aware that if you are opening this website in a public location, you will want to turn the volume down on your computer. Some people may not appreciate the humor. View this "educational filmstrip" about the first four years of the Bush administration at this website: http://filmstripinternational.com/

Some comments on the death penalty

I have mentioned the death penalty in several posts in the last few days, and I thought it would be appropriate to give you a general understanding of my views. I am not opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. I believe that there are some crimes that are so heinous the perpetrator deserves to pay the ultimate penalty for the crime. However, I believe that certain criteria must be met before the accused can be put to death.

I do not believe that all murderers should face the death penalty, but multiple murderers definitely should. In addition, when murders are committed with extreme brutality or with extreme disregard for the humanity of the victim, then I believe the accused should face the death penalty. An additional requirement in my mind is that the accused must be guilty beyond any doubt -- not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt. I believe that an accused person could be found guilty under a less strict requirement, but must not be punished so severely without a guarantee of that person's guilt. It is too high a price to pay for a nation to execute an innocent person.

I'm not sure if I would argue for the death penalty in any cases other than murder, but if I did argue for it, the case would have to be of such an extreme or horrible nature that I thought the accused could never feel remorse for his/her crime.

Star Wars Episode III Trailer

Well, I'm not really sure that I am anticipating this movie at all, but at least the trailer has gotten me a little more excited about the movie's release in May 2005. This will apparently be the last Star Wars movie, at least until George Lucas dies, so we'd better enjoy it. Hopefully it will be better than Ep's I and II!! Let me know what you think of the trailer. It can be found at the link below. (NOTE: this trailer is in Quicktime format; you can download the QuickTime player for free at Apple.com.)

[Link removed by administrator--11/09/2004.] Sorry folks, but the link is apparently dead. If I find another site that is showing the trailer, I will link it again.

THE TRAILER IS NOW AVAILABLE AT http://www.STARWARS.COM--CHECK IT OUT THERE!!

Maureen Dowd on "Rove's Revenge"

In Sunday's NYTimes, Maureen Dowd devotes her column to Karl Rove's motivation. She writes that as a child of age nine, Rove supported Richard Nixon in his presidential-election battle against John Kennedy. Her proposition is that he continues to fight the same battle today against progressive/liberal America. His greatest desire is to turn the world back to a different time -- a time before Vietnam-war guilt, a time before demonstrations for peace, a time before the fight for civil rights -- when there was no gray. Rove longs for the days when every decision the country faced was right or wrong, when there was no middle ground to be argued by 'liberal elites.'

Karl Rove and his surrogate GWBush fight against the New Frontier offered by Kennedy. In the words of Ms. Dowd, "Instead of the New Frontier, Karl and W. offer the New Backtier." It is Ms. Dowd's assertion that "this White House's frontier is not a place of infinite progress and expansion, stretching society's boundaries. It doesn't battle primitivism; it courts primitivism." She cites Bush's pledges to overhaul Social Security, Medicare, and the tax code. She mentions Bush's desire to once again mix church and state, to replace science with religion, and to replace fact with faith. She argues that faith in politics has not always been so at odds with fact and science.

Jimmy Carter won the evangelical vote in 1976, and he won it in Ohio. He combined his evangelical appeal with a call for social justice, integrating his church and laboring for world peace. But W. appealed to that vote's most crabbed insecurities - the disparaging of the other, the fear of those godless hedonists in the blue states out to get them and their families. And the fear of scientific progress, as with stem cell research.

When William Jennings Bryan took up combating the theory of evolution, he did it because he despised the social Darwinists who used the theory to justify the "survival of the fittest" in capitalism. Bryan hated anything that justified an economic system that crushed poor workers and farmers, and he hated that the elites would claim there was scientific basis for keeping society divided and unequal.

The new evangelicals challenge science because they've been stirred up to object to social engineering on behalf of society's most vulnerable: the poor, the sick, the sexually different.

Yet the Bush conservatives do their own social engineering. They thought they could toughen up the American character with the invasion of Iraq. Now they want to reshape the country on "moral" issues - though their morality seems to allow them to run a campaign full of blatant distortions and character assassination, and to mislead the public about the war.

Basically, Ms. Dowd shares the same thoughts that most of us feel after the victory for the incumbent. This administration and its adherents have no use for social justice, assistance for the poor or elderly, or an overarching necessity to be good stewards of the environment. This administration is in favor of big business at the expense of all else. It favors the 'moral issues' of pro-life -- except in the case of war or the death penalty or the respectful treatment of prisoners -- and of pro-family -- except in the case where a family does not consist of one man, one woman, and their children (even a single parent would not fit this pro-family agenda; in fact, the newly elected Republican Senator from South Carolina would not want a single-mother to be a public school teacher!!)

Are these really 'Christian values'? Would not Jesus have embraced the down-trodden? Did not Jesus speak out against the accumulation of wealth? (Read Luke 6:20 - 49 -- For example: "Woe unto you that are rich! for you have received your reward. Woe unto you that are full! for you shall hunger.") A true Christian understands that God (and Jesus) calls men and women to help their fellow humans, to support each other, and to provide for the needs of the many rather than of the few. As you reflect on your vote this week, did you really follow the words of Jesus? Were the 'moral issues' that influenced your vote the issues of the weak and the oppressed, or were they the two issues that the Republican Party told you represented 'moral issues'?

Arafat's Health

I keep seeing and hearing commentaries about the political vacuum that will be created when Yasser Arafat dies. I couldn't disagree more. Arafat has been a relatively insignificant political figure for Palestine since he agreed to turn the PLO into the Palestinian Authority. The 'man-on-the-street' in Palestine has come to view Arafat as the sell-out figure-head. The real political clout lies in the hands of Hamas. The Hamas organization did not make the error that the PLO did in attempting to communicate with the international community. Hamas has worked hard to assist the people of Palestine by bringing doctors, medicine, food, and other essentials into the communities where they are needed. All the while, Hamas has battled against the domination of the Israeli government through suicide bombings and carefully planned terrorist attacks. I think Hamas has become the Palestinian equivalent of the Irish Republican Army, and they have earned the respect of the people of Palestine. There is no void to be filled when Arafat dies, that void was filled many years ago!

October Jobs Report

Well, some good news came out this week about the economy. Finally, we are seeing some job growth under the Bush administration. Over 300,000 new jobs were created in October, although there were over 2,000 job LOSSES in the manufacturing sector. Where did all of these new jobs come from? It is obvious to me now that my friends have pointed out that Christmas is just over a month away. Most of these new jobs were created as a result of seasonal employment in the retail industry. The sustained improvement of our economy is still months away, if it occurs at all under the Bush administration.

As long as the Bushies promote supply-side economics, this country will remain in serious budgetary crisis. If the last twenty years taught this country anything, it should be that extreme economic theories are no match for moderation in dealing with budgets. The Reagan era put us into a deep hole that it took nearly ten years to climb out of thanks to the economic frugality of the Clinton administration. Into the economic panorama steps the current administration and we are right back to the early Reagan years--tax cuts and increased spending. These guys have no concept of moderation in anything they do. Economic balance? Forget it!! If any of you think the jobs market, monetary policy, tax policy, budget deficits, or spending policy will be altered in the least in the four years of a NEW Bush administration, think again. We will get the same bad policies repeated over and over again.

Record deficits. Privatization of anything and everything. Removal of all government regulation, even in cases where it is most needed. The neocons have perverted the economic ideology of fiscal conservatism to some form of 'no tax and spend big anyway' policy because the government can run just fine on deficits--is that so??? NO!!!

A new day has dawned, but the sights are still depressing

GWBush has won. I have to accept that now as fact. Of course, he didn't JUST win, he won decisively by over 3 million votes in the popular vote, and he picked up two new states that he did not win in 2000 while winning Florida and Ohio rather impressively. The sad thing for me, as Thomas Friedman wrote this week in his NYTimes column, is that this election was not just about policy differences, but really it was about the definition of the American ideal itself. Those of us who believe the American ideal should be about lifting up all members of society, looking out for each other as a family would, giving every individual an equal opportunity to succeed in life, offering hope to all the unfortunate souls who have never known success, and bringing financial stability and balance to our federal budgets have lost this battle. Honestly, I think we may have lost our hope for the near future of seeing our beliefs and ideals come to the forefront of public debate.

For now, the right-wing idealogues that Cawood calls neo-fasci-cons, will dominate public discourse and inundate us with their reactionary agenda. We will see more (and perhaps permanent) tax cuts while our country continues to fight an impeachable war with annual budget deficits reaching historically astronomical depths. The right will control the discussion about Social Security reform (led by privitization and stock-market investment) and Medicare reform (will we really continue to let millions of children be without health coverage?). We will hear more and more about the appointment of strict constructionist judges and justices, the religious right will dominate discussion about the 'protection of marriage' amendment, and pro-life causes will continue to focus on the unborn while neglecting to consider the innocent lives lost as a result of war, or the innocent lives lost as a result of the death penalty.

I can only do two things at this point--continue to speak out against the far-right agenda of this President's administration, and pray that God will truly guide the President in his role as leader. I sincerely doubt that the President has been willing to listen to God except when he wants to hear Him. I hope that Bush will begin to listen to Him at all times and will work to bring the country toward peace and understanding. Bush has great rhetoric, but his actions do not reflect his words--if he truly wants to heal the rift in this country between the red and the blue, then he needs to moderate his agenda so that he represents all the people.

KERRY CONCEDES

This post represents the delineation between PRE-election 2004 and POST-election 2004.
*************************************************************************************
This is a sad moment for me (as I know it is for many of you) and I wanted to use this space to acknowledge the hard-fought campaign waged by Kerry and the Dems. It looked as though he might pull off the upset until 11 or 12 last night, and by this morning we all knew the election had been decided. GWBush has been re-elected resoundingly, and those of us on the losing side wonder just what it is that the people see in him. Certainly I have been told again and again about his appeal, but I do not see it. In fact, I feel the opposite and just as strongly.

John Kerry fought the good fight and achieved much more than anyone ever thought he could against this sitting president. This moment is one which will be remembered years and years from now. Most of the memories about this moment are yet to be formed during the next four years. Will future generations look back on this election and discuss the successes or failures of the second Bush administration? Certainly, as an American I can only hope that there will be more successes than failures and more unity than division. However, with the historical knowledge on which I have to balance my suppositions, I can only predict more failures and more division. Pray for our leaders--that they may make the best decisions for ALL Americans.
*************************************************************************************

Not even the conservative newspaper of Crawford, TX is willing to support GWBush!!!

The hometown newspaper of GWBush in Crawford, TX--the Lone Star Iconoclast--has endorsed John Kerry for President this year. Four years ago the newspaper endorsed Bush because the promises he made to the country better fit their expectations as a conservative news organization, but they say that his policies have not matched his promises. They argue that based upon the records of the two candidates, Kerry is the only choice.

Kerry's voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.

Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.

When conservative journalists in the President's home state cannot justify his re-election, how can anyone else in America do so? A vote for Bush today is a vote against economic stability. A vote for Bush today is a vote against sound foreign policy. A vote for Bush today can only be justified based on a poorly reasoned emotional position that cannot benefit the future of this country. The Bush administration is filled with neo-conservative idealogues who have no interest in representing the economic, health, and security concerns of middle- and lower-income families. This administration, regardless of its rhetoric, has proven itself to be concerned only about upper-income individuals, large corporations, pharmaceutical companies, and the oil business. As John Kerry likes to quote the Epistle of James, "faith without works is dead, being alone"--that is, don't listen to the words, look at the deeds!!! I am glad to see that the Crawford newspaper has learned its lesson; let us hope that more Americans have. WAKE UP! VOTE FOR CHANGE! VOTE FOR KERRY!!!

Abortion rate increases during Bush administration

From a recent online article in The Baptist Standard, "Glen Stassen, a trained statistician and ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif." has reported that although the abortion rate fail to a 24-year low during the Clinton White House years, it has begun to increase again during the Bush administration. Stassen calculates that "'52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected' had the abortion-rate decrease of the 1990s continued." Stassen argues that the most likely reason for the increase has been economic conditions. He reports that the two most often listed reasons for young women having an abortion was either because they were not in a good financial situation to raise a child, or because they did not have a reliable partner.

Stassen believes that in order to insure the continuing decline of the abortion rate in the United States, prospective mothers must be assured of sound economic conditions, good health care, health insurance, jobs and a living wage, and emotional support. He argues that voters who are concerned about being pro-life advocates "should look at more issues in the election than which politician opposes legal abortion. 'Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative... Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care and a living wage.'"

Just one more reason that the Bush economic plan as been an abject failure. VOTE tomorrow for a change. VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY!

Gallup breaks down two likely scenarios for the Electoral College vote

According to Gallup, there are two likely possibilities that could decide the Presidential election this year. In both scenarios, the assumption is that the candidate wins the same states as his party's candidate in the last election if that state was won by more than 5% points. Everything then depends on a handful of states, most notably Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Mexico.

From most recent Gallup polling, it looks as though Bush wins Florida and Kerry wins Pennsylvania. That means Ohio is hugely important. At the time the article was written, Kerry was leading Ohio and the polls were shifting in his favor. If he wins Ohio, then Bush must win two of Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and New Mexico. If Kerry wins three of those four, then he wins the election. Bush has been in the lead in both Wisconsin and Iowa for most of the year.

Of course, if Kerry wins Florida or Bush wins Pennsylvania, then the complexities become exponentially greater. Ohio remains a key state, along with the upper midwest. It will be hard to predict the results of this election, and many pundits and pollsters are saying that the results of this election could easily not be known until late November or early December.

And from Today's New York Times, Maureen Dowd on Bush and Osama

In her Sunday column in the NYTimes, Maureen Dowd, the vivacious and articulate W. basher, says that the appearance this week of Osama bin Laden looking fit and healthy and speaking directly to the American people about their future safety has pundits arguing that this may help GWBush in Tuesday's election. She takes a rather different viewpoint--

The Bushies' campaign pitch follows their usual backward logic: Because we have failed to make you safe, you should re-elect us to make you safer. Because we haven't caught Osama in three years, you need us to catch Osama in the next four years. Because we didn't bother to secure explosives in Iraq, you can count on us to make sure those explosives aren't used against you.

You'd think that seeing Osama looking fit as a fiddle and ready for hate would spark anger at the Bush administration's cynical diversion of the war on Al Qaeda to the war on Saddam. It's absurd that we're mired in Iraq - an invasion the demented vice president praised on Friday for its "brilliance" - while the 9/11 mastermind nonchalantly pops up anytime he wants. For some, it seemed cartoonish, with Osama as Road Runner beeping by Wile E. Bush as Dick Cheney and Rummy run the Acme/Halliburton explosives company - now under F.B.I. investigation for its no-bid contracts on anvils, axle grease (guaranteed slippery) and dehydrated boulders (just add water) .

Osama slouched onto TV bragging about pulling off the 9/11 attacks just after the president strutted onto TV in New Hampshire with 9/11 families, bragging that Al Qaeda leaders know "we are on their trail."

Maybe bin Laden hasn't gotten the word. Maybe W. should get off the trail and get on Osama's tail.

W. was clinging to his inane mantra that if we fight the terrorists over there, we don't have to fight them here, even as bin Laden was back on TV threatening to come here. The president still avoided using Osama's name on Friday, part of the concerted effort to downgrade him and merge him with Iraqi insurgents.

[...]

In their ruthless determination to put Mr. Bush's political future ahead of our future safety, the White House and House Republicans last week thwarted the enactment of recommendations of the 9/11 commission they never wanted in the first place.

From Saturday's New York Times--

October 30, 2004
Taking Bush at His Word

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

I often criticize statements by President Bush, so today let me praise
some of his real wisdom:

• Oct. 11, 2000: "If we're an arrogant nation, [foreigners] will resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. ... We've got to be humble."

It's a good thing Mr. Bush tried to be humble, or the U.S. would have an approval rating even lower than 5 percent in Jordan, and Osama bin Laden's approval rating in Pakistan would be higher than 65 percent.

• Feb. 27, 2001: "I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. ... We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would."

But Mr. Bush, with the help of a weak economy, has transformed the Clinton budget surpluses into huge deficits. Since Mr. Bush took office, the federal debt has increased by $2.1 trillion, or 40 percent.

• Sept. 25, 2000: "It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."

Hmm. And many of our exports go abroad. Meanwhile, despite the lackluster economy, oil imports are 1.3 million barrels per day higher than in Mr. Clinton's last year in office.

• June 11, 2001: "My administration is committed to a leadership role
on the issue of climate change."

Great! Because America's carbon dioxide emissions, associated with global warming, have risen 1.7 percent since then.

• June 26, 2003: "Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors."

It takes a big man to admit mistakes, like his administration's practice of hiding certain Arab prisoners from Red Cross and other inspectors.

• Nov. 5, 2003: "In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. ... We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society."

Abortions declined in the U.S. in the Clinton years; the abortion rate dropped by 22 percent in the 1990's. But while data are incomplete, abortions appear to have increased sharply since Mr. Bush took office. Glen H. Stassen, a Christian pro-life theologian, estimates that 52,000 more abortions occurred in 2002 than would have been expected based on the previous trend.

Professor Stassen attributes the rise in abortions in part to the troubled economy and concerns among pregnant women that they cannot afford to have babies.

• May 25, 2004: "One of the challenges we face is to make sure the health care system responds to the needs of the citizens."

But five million more Americans don't have health insurance, compared with when Mr. Bush took office.

• Sept. 9, 2003: "We must focus early to make sure every child can read and write and add and subtract."

But Mr. Bush's budget guidelines translate into inflation-adjusted reductions in 2006 alone of more than $900 million for Head Start and childhood education.

• May 24, 2003: "We will not tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea."

On Mr. Bush's watch, North Korea is generally believed to have gone from two nuclear weapons to about eight.

• 2001: "Not on my watch."

Scrawled note by Mr. Bush on a report to him about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda that had occurred under President Clinton.

That's reassuring to the 100,000 or more people in Darfur who have died in a spasm of murder and rape that Mr. Bush acknowledges as genocide.

• Sept. 30, 2004: "The biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network."

But the single most important step to reducing the risk that a nuclear weapon will destroy New York is to secure loose nukes abroad, and Mr. Bush has been lackadaisical about that. Only 135 out of 600 metric tons of Russian nuclear materials have been given comprehensive upgrades, and Mr. Bush initially proposed cutting funds for that program.

• Sept. 2, 1999: "Effective reform requires accountability. ... It is a sad story. High
hopes, low achievement. Grand plans, unmet goals. My administration will do
things differently."

Oh?

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company