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!
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Saturday, November 27, 2004
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.)
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!!]
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
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.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
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?
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?
Saturday, November 20, 2004
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!!
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!!
Thursday, November 18, 2004
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."
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!!!!!
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!!!!!
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
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'.
Anyway, I digress. Enjoy the 'Tips for Depressed Democrats'.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
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!
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!
Saturday, November 13, 2004
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?
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.
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.
Friday, November 12, 2004
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
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.
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.
Monday, November 08, 2004
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/
Sunday, November 07, 2004
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.
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!!
[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'?
Saturday, November 06, 2004
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!!!
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!!!
Friday, November 05, 2004
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
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.
*************************************************************************************
*************************************************************************************
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.
*************************************************************************************
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
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!!!
Monday, November 01, 2004
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
