Arlen Specter Saves Alberto's Soul

Arlen Specter Saves Alberto's Soul

Glory Hallelujah!

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez offered to be sworn in this morning before he testified in front of the Capitol Hill hearing on NSA Surveillance and Presidential Wartime Powers - a wonderful American tradition representing the value we place on God and truth.

Chairman of the Committee Arlen Specter just wouldn't have any of that kind of swearing-in on the Bible, regardless of the fact it is long-standing tradition and that the American public trusts Congress and the Bush administration right now about as much as they'd trust a rattlesnake in their beds.

Perhaps Arlen Specter was trying to save Berto's soul from the fires of Hell. After all, putting his hand on the Bible and swearing to tell the truth might have caused Berto to spontaneously combust with Beelzebub right there waiting to lead him to his eternal firepit.

Thanks to the considerate and truth-loving (barf) Arlen Specter, Berto Gonzalez is far more free to lie today and save Hell for another day.

____________

After the "just trust us" attitude we got from the Bush administration in the Abu-Ghraib torture case, the Republican majority in Congress should know better than to toss the Bible aside in their current investigatory process.

If our traditional system of justice is better than that of most countries (and it has been), it's because of our long standing common agreement to place a high value on truth, justice, openness, and checks and balances. All we saw this morning was a partisan effort on the part of the GOP majority that was so bold and ugly that it wiped away years of trust and tradition. For all the Republican talk, they don't believe in truth and tradition - and they are snubbing the system of justice we have all come to know so well.

For all his tough talk, Arlen Specter showed his emptiness of intent to be tough when he gave Berto a free pass on showing God-fearing America that he was intending to tell the truth.


Arlen Specter, Alberto Gonzalez, NSA

Mehlman Gets it Wrong on ABC

Mehlman Gets it Wrong on ABC

Ken Mehlman, speaking his usual nonsense for his Republican party, is trying to convince us that Senator Hillary Clinton "seems to have a lot of anger" and voters usually do not send angry candidates to the White House. Appearing on ABC's This Week, he said, "When you think of the level of anger, I'm not sure it's what Americans want."

Mehlman's got it ass-backwards. Angry voters send candidates who recognize the need for change to the White House. (Especially when voters are angry because they believe they were gravely misled by the worst President in American history and his inept administration.) A major city was virtually destroyed in a hurricane and flood just five months ago. I wonder how New Orleans residents felt when Bush virtually ignored them in his annual State of the Union? Might they have felt some anger?

Think she's ready to pounce?

I saw Hillary Clinton stand up with a coy smile on her face last Tuesday night during the SOTU speech as she lead the cheer of the Democrats when Bush dared to mention his failed efforts to gut Social Security in 2005.

That was no angry smile. It was more like the long-lasting grin from the Cheshire cat.

Meowwwww, little Kenny. Meowwwwww.


Ken Mehlman, Hillary Clinton

Dems Virtually Missing on Sunday Talk Shows Today

Dems Virtually Missing on Sunday Talk Shows Today

What's wrong with the Sunday morning political talk shows? Of all the major Sunday morning talk shows (Fox News Sunday, ABC's This Week, NBC's Meet the Press, and CBS' Face the Nation), only ONE Democrat appeared as a guest. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) appeared with Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Al). The rest of the shows featured Republicans, Republicans, and more Republicans (with no Democrats to offer their own points of view).

Last week, we bloggers told you about the shocking memo - minutes of a meeting that included President Bush and UK prime minister Tony Blair that was uncovered by Phillipe Sands and Britain's Channel 4.

On this Sunday, we have witnessed the American media completely burying the story.

The secretarial slaves known as the American mainstream news media, wielding their obediently scribing paws of duty to the corrupt U.S. political system, are manacle-bound by their Corporate owners and sponsors.

Journalism should be an open and trusted source of critical questioning and intelligent analysis, but the political reporting style of today's mainstream networks equates to little more than taking straight dictation from the failure of a President who cowed all of them last week in his SOTU speech into great fear. It was loud albeit unspoken. The bottom line is that the unemployment line awaits them if they dare to lead the unwashed masses into second-guessing him on Iraq.

It's truly pathetic, not to mention depressing.

The political culture of Washington D.C. must change, and I don't see mainstream media rattling any cages. Instead, they appear to be happy residents of those cages. The best thing they did today was to allow the new House majority leader John Boehner )R-Oh) to make himself look like the largest germ-problem in a very sick D.C. environment. I suppose that is why I laughed out loud when Boehner told Tim Russert, at the end of his interview, that "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

The Republicans installed one of the biggest sources of the D.C. disease by choosing the sun-tanned, chain-smoking, golf-trip-loving, lobbyist-pampered Boehner - a bona fide germ among germs.

The problem with sunlight is that that the mainstrream media doesn't shine it like they should, because the rigged and corrupt U.S. political system bleeds sleazily, like incest at its finest, onto the media's paymasters and intertwined Government representatives.

Blogs are sunshine. Let's focus our beams on the source of illness in D.C. Let's clean up the disease known as politics in Washington D.C. The Democrats were virtually shut out of political discussions this Sunday. MSM in its current state is a cause of the persistent malady, not just a side-effect. This madness must end before it becomes a terminal illness.


Democrats, Tim Russert, John Boehner, Meet The Press, Sunday Talk

Will John Edwards Run in 2008?

"We need hope. We need the belief inside us that we are good, strong, honorable people and we can do great things together."

- Sen. John Edwards

Will John Edwards Run in 2008?
That seems to be a popular question these days

They're wondering in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Paul Oginni, a first year biological sciences major at UC Irvine is impressed with former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

By continuing to advocate for the nation’s destitute, even after suffering defeat in 2004, Edwards demonstrates the attitude of an ideal politician: a persistent, aggressive devotion to the American people....After losing the election, Edwards could have chosen to fall into a pit of apathy and bitterness, shunning all opportunities to put himself in the vulnerable position of public leadership...He could have become a political pundit, producing a wealth of words that would have been of use to no one but his bloated ego....But refusing to be relegated to the list of society’s could-have-beens, Edwards kept pushing these issues, even after the campaign trail had ended. This type of stubborn integrity is rare in the field of politics. - New University paper

Senator Edwards was recently visiting Fayetteville State University in north Carolina where he made his audience aware that poverty strikes black Americans in greater numbers, especially single mothers who worry daily about meeting basic needs and lacking health care for their children. He said the average net worth of a black family in the United States is $6,000, compared with $80,000 for a white household.

Hurricane Katrina and the devastation it brought to New Orleans, where thousands of poor people were left homeless, brought new awareness of the issue, he said....Edwards dispelled the notion that poor people are lazy or failures. He said people often need help from their families, public schools and other resources to succeed.

“None of us get here by ourselves, and what we do matters as a nation,” he said. [source: FayettevilleOnline.com]

The 2008 Iowa caucuses are about 100 weeks away. The Democrat who visited most often last year was John Edwards, and he plans to return on February 25, when he will speak at the Scott County Democrats' annual banquet in Davenport.

Congratulations to the Jacksonville Bar Association for securing Senator Edwards as the keynote speaker for their annual Law Day luncheon in April. Usually, their keynote speakers get a pretty high figure for speaking, but Senator Edwards is doing it pro bono. Law Week is an opportunity for attorneys in the Jacksonville area to spend time in their community and schools doing pro bono work. They have mock trials and juries and a DUI awareness program in the high schools. They go to local malls and nursing homes and answer any questions that people may have. They also have a run for cancer where they offer free cancer screening.

So the question remains: Will Senator Edwards run for President in 2008 or won't he? The BBC tried to pin him down on during a rare visit and live radio broadcast in Durham, NC last week.

In a taped segment piped to those watching the show through the glass-lined studio, Lustig pushed Edwards on whether he'd run for president in 2008. Although Lustig came at the former U.S. senator from every angle, Edwards maintained that's a decision he'll make "down the road." [source: Durham Herald Sun]

During his first visit, BBC World News' Robin Lustig fell in love with North Carolia. He said,

"Wonderful people. Beautiful weather. Fascinating history. Big, wide-open spaces and some of the friendliest people I've ever met."

I couldn't agree with him more.

At MyDD, Jonathan Singer believes that if Senator Edwards (who recently spoke at a Conference on Poverty at USC) wants to make another run at the Democratic nomination in two years, he should continue doing exactly what he is currently doing - speaking with conviction, directly from the heart:

You can listen to the speech here (a 29.8 megabyte .wav file) and judge for yourself its power and content. For me, it was simply amazing to hear the depth and substance of the address, particularly in comparison to the one I had attended in 2004. Gone were the poll-tested phrases, the multiple planned applause lines, the refinements that come with a presidential campaign. Edwards came to speak about poverty and that is exactly what he did -- with great zeal. Edwards was not at all afraid to speak about the immorality of poverty, calling the participants in the conference into action...After the speech, some of the others in the audience and I could not help but come to the same conclusion: if only Edwards had used that unreserved tone during the campaign... if only the well-paid consultants had not told him to rein in his language... if only he had given this kind of speech on the hustings...

Senator Edwards is taking an active part in the tour for the UNITE HERE campaign, which is a nationwide hotel workers uprising said to be the start of a “revolution” in America. It is an effort to empower thousands of hotel workers employed in cities across North America (including Local 2) as they work to improve their jobs and secure better lives for themselves and their families. Senator Edwards will be joined by other special guests at a landmark kick-off event on Wednesday, February 15 at 4:15pm at the Parc 55 Hotel at Mason and Ellis Streets in San Francisco.

Side notes:

Hotel workers at the Crown Plaza LaGuardia hotel in Manhattan have been on strike for 16 months after management refused to recognize their August 2004 vote to join the New York Hotel Trades Council. Union officials and members have commended actor George Clooney and his camp for refusing to cross the picket line to shoot his upcoming film Michael Clayton.

Since we've been talking a lot about North Carolina, here's an interesting little piece about North Carolina politics, albeit unrelated to Senator Edwards. A Howard Dean basher writes an op-ed about Dean's recent stop at a North Carolina pizza joint.


John Edwards, President 2008

Expert Group Dispatches DOJ Defense of NSA Spying

Expert Group Dispatches DOJ Defense of NSA Spying

A response to the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the DOJ's legal ("White Paper") defense of the NSA's domestic wiretapping program, written by a diverse group of 14 constitutional scholars and former government officials who have joined together to question the legality of the eavesdropping program. See Balkinization for a further explanation. (Their original letter can be read here.)



NSA, Bush

The Case of the Missing White House Emails

The Case of the Missing White House Emails

Look at what Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Stephen Hadley may have done in order to protect one another, escape incrimination, and/or hinder Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame leak.

On a very much related note, Murray Waas reports that VP Dick Cheney and his former Chief of Staff Scooter Libby knew that the Niger story was false before the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as CIA. source: Raw Story

Tenacious blog reporters John Byrne and Ron Brynaert report that there are dozens of pages of court files in the CIA leak investigation that have gone unnoticed by the mainstream media and that some information in those files may hint that Libby may have outed Plame on the orders of his "superiors." The plot thickens....



Missing emails, Rove, Libby, Hadley, Cheney, Patrick Fitzgerald, Plame, Raw Story

New Bush/Blair Deceit Revealed by Channel 4

New Bush/Blair Deceit Revealed by UK Channel 4

The White House Memo
Bush and Blair discussed using American spy plane in UN colors to lure Saddam into war
This bombshell information from the UK's Channel 4 news, as seen by staff in minutes from a meeting at the White House on January 31, 2003, reveals that Bush and Blair desperately elected to deceive Saddam Hussein once they realized they couldn't get enough WMD evidence for a UN Security Council resolution. (see the video of the news report and the Ming Campbell interview/reaction at linked site).

Phillipe Sands, author of the book Lawless World says it is hard to come up with any charitable explanation for Bush and Blair's intentions as they were seemingly conscious that they could not come up with the big smoking gun that Jack Straw needed from Hans Blix.

Note: David Corn says that this just might be the Mother of All Downing Street Memos. He writes:

To my thinking, this is a rather big deal. The president of the United States caught conspiring to create a modern-day version of the sinking of the Maine? Talk about an impeachable offense. I'm presuming the memo is legit. It was first obtained by British human rights lawyer Philippe Sands for a new version of his book, Lawless World. Sands is a friend of friends of mine. He is a trustworthy fellow, and I know that last year he did succeed in prying sensitive documents out of the British government concerning the legality -- or illegality -- of the invasion of Iraq. His sources were obviously British officials upset with the war. So my informed hunch is that this document is real. If so, how will the White House respond? Will members of the press corps at 1600 Pennsylvania press the point? This revelation -- which is more shocking than anything in the Downing Street Memos -- should be major news here. But will it?

Memo extracts are HERE.

Imperial Presidential Power

"We’ve had idiots as presidents before. He's not unique. But he's certainly the most active idiot that we have ever had."

- Gore Vidal, talking about the current U.S. President

Imperial Presidential Power
Don't let the turds of the media tell you that you're irrational for being concerned

Gore Vidal's statement says it all. Bush isn't the first imperial president, but he's the most deliberate and decidedly the least intelligent one. In American Conservative magazine, Thomas E Woods, author of the anti-intellectual best seller "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History," asserts that President Bush is no threat to America when you consider that the ideological and institutional roots of the imperial presidency extend back at least a century.

The danger of the view of the presidency delineated by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson is not simply that in the name of doing the people's will the president will disregard the separation of powers or other important institutional restraints. Another peril is that the president may define the people's will in a self-serving way and then carry out his own agenda in the name of serving the people.

- by Thomas E. Woods, Jr, All The President's Power

Mr. Woods is gravely concerned about Bush's power grabs and arrogant ignoring of the People's will and opinion.

"The very initiation of the war in Iraq constituted a breathtaking exercise of presidential power but one that has grown so common that it is hardly even noticed or commented upon any longer except by the occasional isolated constitutionalist."

Mr. Woods holds tight to his ideology while he sends a mocking jab to the Left:

As for the delicate souls whose consciences were so deeply troubled by George W. Bush’s unilateral initiation of war in 2003, where were they in 1999 when Bill Clinton, acting through NATO and siding with the Muslims of Kosovo, orchestrated a bombing campaign against Serbia without the consent of Congress?

I will tell you now that this liberal was extremely concerned in 1999. A scan of the Letters to the Editor of the Syracuse newspapers would show that I expressed public concern at the time. I'm not sure why Mr. Woods imagines every liberal soul is a hypocrite. He's wrong.

I submit that history will show that the decision (ignorance of rules and tradition notwithstanding) made to bomb Serbia was effective and instrumental in the defeat of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

"How many "Black Hawk Down" movies could be made from the dreadful experiences of just ONE DAY in the terrible neoconservative experiment known as the Iraq War?"

Clinton lands on the right side of history. Can the same be said of Little Bush in Iraq, three years in, with over 2200 troops dead in a still-insecure land and no sign of a palpable victory? I say no, no - a thousand times - no. Bush has driven a nail in the coffin of public trust in Executive power. A blockbuster movie, "Black Hawk Down", was made about Clinton-era Somalia and the awful sight of soldiers being trapped and mauled. How many "Black Hawk Down" movies could be made from the dreadful experiences of just ONE DAY in the terrible neoconservative experiment known as the Iraq War?

When he was president, Woodrow Wilson attempted to strike a balance in the country that would garner the trust of both populists and aristocrats (see his inaugural address of 1913). Bush's speeches have been glaringly strong - often bullying - on the side of those he politically favors. What is often missing is a sense of true moral leadership. Listen to Wilson talk about the cost of greed and self-interest in government:

There has been something crude and heartless and unfeeling in our haste to succeed and be great. Our thought has been "Let every man look out for himself, let every generation look out for itself," while we reared giant machinery which made it impossible that any but those who stood at the levers of control should have a chance to look out for themselves. We had not forgotten our morals. We remembered well enough that we had set up a policy which was meant to serve the humblest as well as the most powerful, with an eye single to the standards of justice and fair play, and remembered it with pride. But we were very heedless and in a hurry to be great.

- Woodrow Wilson, inaugural address 1913

I just can't imagine Bush speaking to America this way, because the policies he has endorsed would make him an instant hypocrite.

In his day, President Teddy Roosevelt was progressive America's most articulate spokesman. He worked to increase the regulatory power of the federal government. Distrustful of big business, despite its close ties to the Republican party in many states, he was known as a 'trust buster', pursuing and tackling anti-trust issues. Under his leadership, forty-four suits were brought against businesses that were claimed to be monopolies. Let's face it, Roosevelt was more of a (NY State Attorney General) Eliot Spitzer than a corporate-crony-coddling George W. Bush.

I believe the real danger for democracy in the Bush imperial presidency stems from

"..none of this would work if we had an educated and informed electorate"

his deliberate anti-intellectualism (Wilson was a respected scholar and moral leader, and let's face it - Bush is not); Bush's allergy to democratic socialism (by 1909, Teddy Roosevelt had endorsed proposals for graduated income and inheritance taxes and other concepts then deemed radical); and Bush's deliberate ignorance of the rule of law.

But none of this would work if we had an educated and informed electorate.

Thomas Woods' writings express the same concern that I have, albeit our respective diversity in ideology, about George W. Bush's radical crusade - unilaterally walking over 200 years of tradition and law. Mr. Woods is worried, too.

From part two of his All the President's Power series:

"Former congressman Bob Barr, a conservative from Georgia, has it right: “The American people are going to have to say, ‘Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror.’ Either the Constitution and the laws of this country mean something or they don’t. It is truly frightening what is going on in this country."

I still believe in an America where the powers and rights of the People are well-protected. I believe that the Bush administration has gone too far, and its reasons for doing so, even at a time of war, are unsettling. Many believe there has been an abuse of power and that their president has not told them the truth.

"Today's mainstream media has not been a responsible avenue for informing the electorate, and I partially fault them for the place where we find ourselves today."

The sad truth is, most Americans are too ignorant to care. Gore Vidal recently summed it up:

“Our political system is now thoroughly corrupt. Since the educational system for most people is inadequate they begin their lives as citizens with no knowledge of our republic and its history while the media is in the hands of a very few people who have much to hide from us.

The greatest threat to democracy is an uninformed electorate. Today's mainstream media has not been a responsible avenue for informing the electorate, and I partially fault them for the place where we find ourselves today. I wonder why today's well-paid (and complacent) writers fail to see the imperial arrogance and potentially fatal overreach that may hasten the demise of our freedoms. Al Gore has warned America of an impending constitutional crisis, and although the turds of the media love to literally mock Mr. Gore to please their intellectually pedestrian or pro-Republican readers, a certain portion of the citizenry who pay close attention understand and take stock in what Mr. Gore is telling them.

"..the unwashed masses will go on having a field day with Al Gore (or Virginia governor Tim Kaine's left eyebrow) while little Bush and his band of raving lunatics pave the way for the next unnecessary and disastrous war.."

People need to start speaking out on behalf of what they believe. I firmly believe that we have an idiot for a President - and the neoconservatives in his administration are a bunch of idiots. If we fail to point to the emperors who have no clothes (or brains), the unwashed masses will go on having a field day with Al Gore (or Virginia governor Tim Kaine's left eyebrow) while little Bush and his band of raving lunatics pave the way for the next unnecessary and disastrous war that our sons and daughters will be suiting up for (with a likely deficit of appropriate protective armor).

The Senate is preparing to make the case that power between the executive and legislative branches is unbalanced. I would call that an understatement.

"You know, it’s at a time when people say, ‘Well, it makes no difference what we do, you know, if we march and we make speeches, and this and that.’ It makes a lot of difference if millions of Americans just say, “We are fed up! We don't like you. We don't like what you're doing to the country and what you have done to the country. We don't like to live in a lawless land, where the rule of law has just been bypassed and hacks are appointed to the federal bench, who will carry on and carry on and carry on all of the illegalities which are so desperately needed by our military-industrial corporate masters.”

- Gore Vidal

"Don't be intimidated by total turds who insinuate that you are "irrational"."

America is in the wrong hands. Incapable hands. Power-grabbing hands. Scream it from the rooftops. Don't be intimidated by total turds who insinuate that you are "irrational".

Poverty: Thanks for Reminding Them, Bono

Original art by Denise Lawler

"Justice is a higher standard."

- Bono

Poverty: Thanks for Reminding Them, Bono

Bono halped to bring some subtance back into the meaning of faith at yesterday's National Prayer breakfast. He called the UN Millenium Development goals "the Beatitudes for a Globalised World."

From the WaPo:

".. the U2 front man said it's unjust to keep poor people from selling their goods while singing the virtues of the free market, to hold children to ransom for the debts of their grandparents and to withhold medicines that would save lives. "God will not accept that," he said. "Mine won't. Will yours?"

I wish that our political leaders in the United States were as sincere about their faith as Bono seems to be.
E-Robin has a partial transcript and video links to Bono's remarks.

My chosen excerpt from Bono's speech from Sojourners, where Jim Wallis provides additional commentary: (source: sojonet/sojomail):

God may well be with us in our mansions on the hill. I hope so. He may well be with us as in all manner of controversial stuff. Maybe, maybe not. But the one thing we can all agree, all faiths and ideologies, is that God is with the vulnerable and poor.

God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them. "If you remove the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness, and if you give yourself to the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness and your gloom with become like midday and the Lord will continually guide you and satisfy your desire in scorched places."

It's not a coincidence that in the scriptures, poverty is mentioned more than 2,100 times. It's not an accident. That's a lot of air time, 2,100 mentions. (You know, the only time Christ is judgmental is on the subject of the poor.) 'As you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me' (Matthew 25:40). As I say, good news to the poor.

Here's some good news for the president. After 9/11 we were told America would have no time for the world's poor. America would be taken up with its own problems of safety. And it's true these are dangerous times, but America has not drawn the blinds and double-locked the doors.

In fact, you have doubled aid to Africa. You have tripled funding for global health. Mr. President, your emergency plan for AIDS relief and support for the Global Fund - you and Congress - have put 700,000 people onto life-saving anti-retroviral drugs and provided 8 million bed nets to protect children from malaria.

Outstanding human achievements. Counterintuitive. Historic. Be very, very proud.

But here's the bad news. From charity to justice, the good news is yet to come. There is much more to do. There's a gigantic chasm between the scale of the emergency and the scale of the response.

And finally, it's not about charity after all, is it? It's about justice.

Let me repeat that: It's not about charity, it's about justice.

And that's too bad.

Because you're good at charity. Americans, like the Irish, are good at it. We like to give, and we give a lot, even those who can't afford it.

But justice is a higher standard.

Murtha Writes to Bush

Murtha Writes to Bush

Short version:
Iraq is not the center of the war on terrorism.
Redeploy, Replace, Reallocate, Reconstitute

CNN is Having Faux Cow over Toles Cartoon

CNN is Having Faux Cow over Toles Cartoon


CNN is such a weasel-network. They are feigning shock over Tom Toles' political cartoon from January 29th. I can just hear Ken Mehlman or one of his minions in the ear of the network's higher-ups. Outrage! Tom Toles is supporting the terrorists!

On their Healine News network, they are taking a poll, asking the leading question, "Did Toles take it too far?"

When is CNN going to grow up?

CNN's special news feature on "Two Irans" last night, following Bush's further SOTU demonization of and hyperfocus on Iran, was interesting, but I cannot imagine why we wouldn't be seeing a hell of a lot more stories about the "Two Americas." We have enough polarization and poverty right here in the U.S. to fill entire days and news cycles.

I am reminded of 2002 - the lead-up to the war with Iraq when CNN blasted all their demon-Iraq features. I am convinced now, more than ever, that CNN is just another arm of the Oval Office. I had turned them off completely after the presidential election in 2004. I didn't watch them for months and frankly, I barely missed them.

In my opinion, news editors at CNN need to be in more control of their own content instead of allowing the agenda of a very unpopular president (and the corporations who love him) guide their editorial decisions. Their credibility is draining away like swirling feces down the sewer pipe.

In the real world with a news organization with editors who have integrity and balls, Rumsfled would have been fired three years ago, and perhaps we may have never gone to Iraq at all. It's obvious that CNN was intimidated by Bush's SOTU dissent-warnings on Tuesday night.

I want news that really matters to me and my family. I'm sick of our news networks coddling the fear-moongerers and, by their failure to be adequately critical, become fear-mongerers. I long for the enlightened writers and news editors. The words "free press" mean nothing when there is inadequate debate and an ignorance of important issues.

I'm So Sorry, Mrs. Sheehan

I'm So Sorry, Mrs. Sheehan

I'm So Sorry, Mrs. Sheehan
A Poem by Iddybud

In this poem, I am acting as the voice of the Capitol police officer Mike Weight who arrested Cindy Sheehan in the visitor's gallery just before the State of the Union speech last Tuesday night. Mr Weight is the one who called out "Protestor!" upon seeing Mrs. Sheehan sitting down in the gallery and removing her jacket to reveal a T-shirt displaying a running tally of the number of troops killed in Iraq.



i'm so sorry, Mrs. Sheehan
but my master begged me do it
had i not arrested you
the boss would say i blew it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~



disruptive conduct was the charge
your T-shirt message was too large
it told a truth we cannot bear
and W couldn't afford you there.

i know your Casey died for me
and all his buddies, but, you see
"speech" on State of the Union day
is only "free" if you wear plain gray




disruptive conduct was the charge
your T-shirt message was too large
the reason we gave for giving you the boot
was because you didn't arrive in a suit

we tossed you from the gallery floor
because your numbers cut to the core
while W spoke of some far-off "liberty"
he was killing our own on prime-time TV

disruptive conduct was the charge
your T-shirt message was too large
they made me toss you from the People's House
i knew in my heart i was acting the louse

so strong was Bushite resentment for you
that they made me eject Beverly Young, too
bush honored one soldier while his family stayed
and booted you - Casey's sacrifice underplayed

disruptive conduct was the charge
your t-shirt message was too large
bush says he won't take your kind of dissent
you're out on your ass if you're not in his tent

the call of history to deliver the oppressed
turns to piss when the gallery's improperly dressed
we have to learn to nod, applaud, and obey
like Stepford wives on lithium and Cabernet

disruptive conduct was the charge
your T-shirt message was too large
my boss says he's sorry for doing you wrong
but he knew what he had to do all along

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I'm so sorry, Mrs. Sheehan
but my master begged me do it
had i not arrested you
the boss would say I blew it.

Horowitz and Front Page Attack a Christian for Being Christian

Horowitz and Front Page Attack a Christian for Being Christian

David Horowitz - the great authority on Christianity (chortle) has employed Mark Tooley (note the word "tool" in the name) to try to demean the good work of Bob Edgar and the NCC (National Council of Churches). The delicious part is that Tooley is accusing Reverend Edgar of doing precisely what the Christian Right has been doing for several decades (and what is vastly different from Rev. Edgar's stand on the line separating Church and State). Tooley and Horowitz should be concerned, and I understand why they are lashing out. They are not going to be able to win this theological argument and they know it. I've seen Bob Edgar speak, and his love for the works and words of Jesus Christ is as sincere as anything I've witnessed. Demonizing him as a Democrat will simply hold no water when it comes to attempting to debunk his undeniable New Testament-based message. There is a fullness of scope regarding Christian values that Rev. Edgar is asking Americans to publically debate, of which our government should consider when forming democratic policy for a just society. Contrasting Rev. Edgar's position and scope of issues and the position and scope of issues of the Christian Right is akin to looking at a Hubble-telescope-generated vista of the universe compared to the bowling-alley narrowness (and decidedly unenlightened nature) of the values that the Christian Right activists promote.

David Horowitz just can't get over his dislike for Christianity. Alas, Rev. Edgar's world view doesn't match Horowitz's - so Front Page magazine would naturally attack Rev. Edgar as if he was a demonic heretic, which is so far from the truth that Christians like me begin to pity people like the Front Pagers - locked in their little ideological cages. I won't go as far as to sit back, complacent in my pity, and let these idiots take America and Christian theology down the tubes, though.

Frederick Clarkson recently stated that "every effective movement for social justice will be met with smart and formidable opposition." In Horowitz' case, how smart is it to have his particular right-wing neoconservative rag attacking a Christian and dividing the church?

SOTU Highlights Loss

SOTU Highlights Loss

Last night in his SOTU speech, President Bush reminded me of all we have lost since he has come to lead this nation.

The President said that the 911 attacks could have been stopped if the phone calls of two hijackers had been monitored under his domestic eavesdropping program. Dick Cheney had asserted the same thing previous to last night's speech. FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that The National Security Agency's secret domestic spying hasn't nabbed any Al Qaeda agents in the U.S. since the Sept. 11 attacks! Kristen Brietweiser was made a widow when her husband Ronald was killed in New York City on 911. Ak her what she thinks about those assertions of Bush and Cheney. Read 'NSA Director Hayden--One Needle in a Growing Bush "Hay"stack of Lies' by Mrs. Breitweiser.

Kristen lost someone she loved. She wants Bush to stop deliberately and grossly misleading the American public.

Last night in the gallery, Cindy Sheehan - mother of American soldier Casey Sheehan who was killed in Iraq - was removed from her seat. She wasn't simply ejected, but she was arrested for wearing a t-shirt that displayed a message that was not allowed because it criticized Bush.

After booting the mother of a dead soldier who came to listen, Bush spoke a lot more about the criticisms about the Iraq war that he would not accept - all the while chiming lofty rhetoric about something called "liberty." I thought about the Bill of Rights and the many incredibly difficult issues that our Founding Fathers must have discussed in order to agree upon them. We certainly don't see a willingness in teh Executive or Legislative branch for that kind of dissent and debate today. We are losing the Founding Fathers' concept of an enlightened society.

I kept thinking about George Washington's ghost looking at Bush and tossing rotten tomatoes at him - knowing that he deliberately avoided going overseas during Viet Nam - knowing he was attempting, with all his bully might up on his podium, to squelch freedom for Americans to express dissent - knowing how he has completely (and determinedly) divided America - knowing he was hosting one mother of a brave and loyal soldier who'd died in the war on terror while ejecting and arresting a mother of an equally brave and loyal KIA soldier because she dared to express her dissent about the war on a T-shirt.

Although Mrs. Sheehan's act of civil disobedience got her a result she likely suspected and probably surprised few people, the contrast Bush showed us last night between his version of a soldier's "good mother" and a soldier's "bad mother" should be highlighted.

Why should I highlight the contrast? Because they were both soldier's mothers. Can you imagine if Bush had allowed Cindy Sheehan to stay in the gallery and introduced her, all teary-eyed, alongside the other family? If the soldiers' mothers had been allowed to publically hug one another in solidarity over the honrable young men they'd lost? It would have raised Bush up to look so generous in spirit - but no. He couldn't have any of that. He couldn't bring himself to a point where his ego (and his misleading rhetoric) wouldn't have been threatened.

Cindy lost someone she loved. She wants Bush to stop deliberately and grossly misleading the American public.

I kept wondering why Bush was wasting so much time talking about isolationism when it came to war. It was pure fiction. The Democratic leadership has never called for any isolationism! Pat Buchanan (and this fellow) is the only pundit in the mainstream that I've heard going on and on about isolationism. Bush is apparently defending his administration from the rumblings of dissent from members of his own party (as if Democratic criticism wasn't enough).

In essence, Bush has been the one who has isolated the U.S. from international progress because he insisted on unilateralism while plunging headlong into Iraq without a plan - and I'm convinced that he values war over diplomacy. The world can see his stubby little chickenhawk claw - constantly on the trigger.

I am losing something I love - American freedom and democracy. I want Bush to stop deliberately and grossly misleading the American public.

A Tribute to Coretta Scott King

A Tribute to Coretta Scott King



Coretta Scott King
4-27-1927 - 1-30-2006









On June 18, 1953, Martin Luther King Sr. married his son, Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott.

The couple returned to the South to work on the civil liberties of Black Americans. By 1964, King was the mother of four children: Yolanda, Martin Luther King III, Dexter Scott, and Bernice Albertine. Think about the life that Coretta Scott King lived. Listen to words about the time and place where history put Coretta. Her son Dexter Scott Kinghas written about his family:

"When my mother became pregnant with me, the family was moving to Atlanta from Montgomery, Alabama, where my father had been pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. He'd become famous or infamous there, depending on one's slant, as one of the architects of the Montgomery bus boycott. That action was spawned by Mrs. Rosa Parks's refusal to give up her seat on a city transit bus, a watershed event of the Civil Rights Movement. We moved to Atlanta after that."

Dexter Scott reminds us that his mother protected her children from some of the harsh realities and always made them feel supported and cared for.

Our home at 234 Sunset was kind of home central, the neighborhood headquarters. All the kids came by to play. My mom treated them like hers, which wasn't always reassuring for them. Coretta Scott King was a disciplinarian, took no guff from hers or any others. Froze you with a look. "Time out" was a call we made in football, not what fell from her lips in our direction. Under her eye or not, we'd play "hide-and-go-seek," as we called it, football, softball, kickball, tag, marbles in the red clay; we'd spin tops, ride homemade skateboards, "pull" friends along by pedaling bikes standing up as the friend rode on the passenger seat. We had a swing set, seesaw, and slide. I loved the slide. I loved playing on the gym set. I loved it all, really. We had a hoop too. Ours was, in these regards, a typical family home—or so I thought back then.

Dexter Scott came to a gradual awareness of the invisible lines that separated the races in the 1960s South, and he makes it apparent that even though his mother personally struggled alongside her husband to erase those lines, the hardship was never made an issue for her young children. She allowed them to be children - innocent, happy, and well-loved.

As children, we didn't know we were "Negroes," or if we did, we didn't know exactly what that meant. We didn't realize we lived in "segregation," didn't know there were better pools than the one we crowded into at the Y, or that we and our friends would be considered "have-nots" if our father wasn't the co-pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church. We weren't aware that we could and would be turned away from public accommodations, educational institutions, or turned away from desirable living spaces by the real estate restrictive covenants. We weren't aware that we were shunned by society, murdered over mere glances, made to feel less than human. We were children, and children are more than human; we were blessed, but sooner or later we'd grow up and have to face this prison of segregation, unless Daddy won his struggle. There was this great social upheaval, this "great getting-up morning" going on that would redefine our lives and existences, and those of the people around us.

Dexter Scott has memories of how a young Senator named John F. Kennedy cared about his family and called Mrs. King when her husband had been sentenced to hard labor in a Georgia prison for taking part in a lunch-counter demonstration at Rich's department store, protesting segregated eating facilities—the only time he joined any such local demonstration in his hometown of Atlanta.:

My mother spoke with Senator Kennedy; he said he knew it must be hard, he knew she was expecting; if there was anything he could do feel free to call.

On April 4, 1968, the innocence of those children met a shattering reality. Coretta Scott King's husband was shot and killed while giving a speech on a hotel balcony. She knew that she had to be strong for her children and to continue the work of her husband.


Mrs. King has always spoken out for human rights and freedom for all people. She was involved in the opposition of the death penalty. Although Mrs. King had lost her husband and mother-in-law to gun violence, she cannot accept the judgment that their killers deserve to be executed. She believed that the death penalty continues the cycle of violence and destroys all hope for a decent society. Mrs. King said:

"As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the tacking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder."

Another of King's passions is the International Peace Movement. In 1985, she was arrested while protesting the South African Government's policy of racial segregation known as apartheid.



In 1986, Martin's birthday, January 15, became a national holiday because of her dedication to the acknowledgements of her husband's achievements.


She never let the world forget the courageous actions of Rosa Parks.










We shall not forget Coretta Scott King. We know she's marching today with her Martin in Heaven.






Sources:
African American Registry
twbookmark.com

Zogby: Tonight's SOTU - Terror or Trust?

Zogby: Tonight's SOTU - Terror or Trust?

I think John Zogby has made the best point of any writer today on tonight's upcoming SOTU speech. Simply put, Bush can either play the tired terror card or be a real statesman and tackle the issue of trust in government head-on.

"....there is a decline of trust in the federal government. The President will no doubt try to use what's left of the public trust he has from his own base and get his numbers up among his own constituency by playing the war on terrorism card. Or he could try over the next few weeks and months to tackle the overall problem of trust and polarization in the nation today.

His approach tonight in his State of the Union Address will be whether he decides to hit a bunt and make it just to first base or instead opts to go for the fences by tackling the broader distrust that is out there.

That will be the difference between a politician and a statesman."

Given all I have experienced with Bush at the helm, I strongly suspect he'll play the terror tune once again. He's worn it out harder than a teenager's Beyonce CD.

Iran and a SOTU Speech Past

Iran and a SOTU Speech Past

What do we do about Iran?

I'm thinking of a dreadful SOTU speech past....2002.

Four years ago, President Bush decided, quite literally, to demonize Iran by labeling it part of an "Axis of Evil." In all sincerity, I believe that our President is a very unwise leader. He went along, as a piece of driftwood on the tide, with a foreign policy eked out by neoconservative wonks which, in essence, pulled the rug out from those in America who'd been supporting positive progressive reform in Iran. Iranian scholars, artists and authors were blocked from visiting the United States. (Former Iranian President Khatami had proposed a "people-to-people" dialogue). Khatami had helped the United States in Afghanistan, and this was the thanks and support he got from the President of the United States.

The fledgling democratic movement in Iran was dealt a severe setback when President Ahmadinejad was elected. I firmly believe that the Bush administration's wrong-minded foreign policy led to Mr. Ahmadinejad's election. When Iranians last went to the polls, we indirectly begged for a more hardline Iranian stance towards Israel by the Bush administration's diplomatic ignorance and deliberate unwillingness.

Dragging Iran before the U.N. Security Council now isn't going to help. We have to look at this situation with reason as our base - rather than demonization and fear. Even the reformers in Iran would like a modern nuclear program with transparency and adherence to international law. Why would any modern civilization wish to be kept in the dark ages?

We should be doing everything within our diplomatic power to convince Tehran to stick by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, appoint a special human rights monitor for Iran, and give power to Iran's people by employing more NGOs and the private sector to strengthen civil society [and talk to Paul Wolfowitz about ending excessive World Bank loans to Iran that too easily lead to government corruption].

And, for Pete's (and peace's) sake, let's stop demonizing Iran and permit Iran to conduct a limited uranium enrichment program (as allowed under the nonproliferation treaty) under strict safeguards by the IAEA (provided that Tehran promises meaningful reforms, including freeing political prisoners and holding free and fair elections.)

Bush should meet face to face with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad instead of using the tactic of having his administration working with exile groups behind the scenes to chip away at his authority. And let him use Condi Rice for the diplomatic good I know she could do rather than the demonizing bad cop.

Tehran has said it will stop snap inspections of nuclear sites if its case is sent to the UN, which could impose sanctions. What good is any of this going to do for reformers in Iran?

Our current path may lead to even further erosion of positive progress in Iran. I think that's a damned shame.

For too long, leaders have used one of the best methods of uniting their people - keeping a common enemy upon which we can focus our hate. (illustrated in George Orwell's "1984"). Combine that kind of demonization with the real and present instability of the Middle East - add a heaping helping of Bush's foreign policy - and you have a recipe for disaster.

Iran, like Iraq, has been an extremely hard intelligence target. We saw what the political abuse of shaky intelligence and a lack of sincere international cooperation can get us - an unnecessary war in Iraq which has increased the recruitment of terrorists and taken the lives of over two thousand American troops and untold numbers of Iraqi civilians.

Tehran has always said it has the right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - which it has signed - to research nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We neeed to talk about that - bring them into the light. Eliminate the chances that they will start WMD programs. That will take hard the work of intelligent diplomacy - not a war that will destabilize this region.

Either we walk down every diplomatic road - or we'll go to another war that was never necessary and make things a lot more dangerous for our future generation, who will have to deal with the all the dangers of a nuclear world. I don't think that's a false choice. (I know we hear so many today). Nuclear power is here - it's clear we are never going back. Do we choose hope and diplomacy or mutually assured death and destruction?

I choose to hope.

'The America We Believe In' by John Edwards

"The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth. While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong--and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right."

-Senator John Edwards

'The America We Believe In'
by John Edwards

Here is an excerpt from former Senator John Edwards' own State of the Union speech:

I am grateful for the opportunity to talk with you about the state of our union on the day of the president's address to our country. While it is discouraging for all of us to see our country moving in the wrong direction, we need to take this opportunity to offer ideas for how to get the nation back on track.

America is losing the most important element of our national character: We are no longer the land of opportunity for all.

Generations before us came to America for one reason. This is the land where everyone who worked hard would be rewarded, could raise a family and could make a better life for their children. But America has changed. Now, hard work does not guarantee a decent standard of living, and our children do not believe they can achieve the successes of their parents. It should not be that way.

Hurricane Katrina brought the issue of poverty to the forefront for the first time in decades. But the reality is that the people of the Gulf Coast--the vast majority of them working--were living in crisis for years before the hurricane hit and put them on the news. They were living without good schools, adequate health care, safe housing and without hope--just like millions of other families across this country.

During the week of the hurricane, the Census Bureau reported that more than 37 million Americans live in poverty; 13 million of them children, most likely as not going to bed hungry some nights. Their parents sit around the kitchen table and wonder how they'll be able to feed their kids the next day, let alone send them to college. When will our leaders recognize that Americans are ashamed of our failure to reach out to these families?

My friend, Rev. Jim Wallis, has said that the Bible talks about fighting poverty more than 3,000 times. Three thousand times. Our work here on earth is clear.

When history judges us, as a nation and as individuals, it will ask: what did we do to end poverty? How we answer this call will forever define us as a nation--showing the world how America leads or how we fail to live up to our most cherished values.

READ THE REST AT TOMPAINE.COM

Stop Bush's War on People in Poverty

Senator Edwards is asking you to tell the IRS Commissioner to stop freezing the Earned Income Tax Credit refunds of low-wage working families while letting wealthy individuals and big corporations cheat the system. The way to recoup money owed the federal government is to go after those who owe the most, not the least. Poverty profiling must end. Make your voice heard now at www.OneAmericaCommittee.com/EITCaction

Headlines

Headlines

It's Done.

..and "We Are F-f-f-f****d"

Gee, thanks, Democrats.


Kos: While Howard Dean is out raising money directly for the state parties and finally investing in the sort of infrastructure that Republicans spent decades building, the cowardly shots in the beltway press come from disaffected insider consultants who see their lucrative gigs in danger.

Exxon Mobil reported a quarterly profit of $10.7 billion, capping a year of record earnings dominated by surging oil and gas prices. The results pushed up Exxon's profit for the year to a staggering $36.13 billion -- bigger than the economies of 125 of the 184 countries ranked by the World Bank. Profit rose 42 percent from 2004. The company and its peers have come under fire for posting billions in profit while consumers struggle with high gasoline prices.

Raw Story: The second part of the Senate investigation into bungled pre-war Iraq intelligence is still being held up by an internal Pentagon investigation of Douglas Feith, one of the war's leading architects.

A supermarket chain pulled soup cans from the shelves of its stores in six states after a family reported finding a sewing needle in a sealed can of minestrone, officials said. The incident was the fourth report of needles or pins found in food purchased from stores in the Bethlehem, PA area in the past two weeks. The allegedly tampered can of Progresso Vegetable Classics Minestrone was purchased Saturday at a Giant Food Store in Wind Gap, PA.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson is planning a march this spring to protest post-hurricane policies he fears will marginalize the black community, the civil rights leader said Monday as he toured one of the city's hardest-hit areas.

Raw Story has Senate Minority leader Harry Reid's speech, called a pre-emptive broadside to Bush's SOTU speech.


Jill Carroll has appeared on a new video. She was crying. Her voice was not audible. The demand from her captors is still the same: the release all Iraqi women prisoners.

The United States and the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council reached surprising agreement Tuesday that Iran should be hauled before that powerful body over its disputed nuclear program.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday said he would meet soon with Hamas leaders about forming a new government.

Abbas stressed the importance of the continuation of financial and other types of support by the donor countries in order that the Palestinian institutions continue to function and the plan to build the independent Palestinian state is not disrupted or derailed.

Ayman invites George...to become a Muslim. {As if that will happen anytime soon.]

A maritime rescue is under way in the Channel between France and Britain after a chemical tanker collided with a bulk carrier ship overnight last night.

By the end of 2007, the overwhelming majority of the multinational forces will have left Iraq. The number of foreign soldiers in Iraq will fall below 100,000 by the end of the year, Iraq's national security adviser told The New York Times in a report posted at the NYT website yesterday.

Five months after Hurricane Katrina made landfall, toppling New Orleans' aging levees and submerging 80 percent of the city, only 55 representatives and 30 senators have visited the decimated city.

Karen Kwiatkowsi on Neoconservatives

Karen Kwiatkowsi on Neoconservatives

"Who benefits from this kind of foreign policy?"

- Karen Kwiatkowski

Karen Kwiatkowski is interviewed by Omar Khan of Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches, where she characterizes neoconservatism as "a dead philosophy of anticommunism." She asks: Is it really democracy that [the neoconservatives] want, or is democracy simply a trojan horse?

She says, of neoconservatives:

You can’t just have a mere enemy; it has to be a monstrous enemy, something that can destroy us. They’ve found that in, or rather cultivated it, in what is called 'Islamic Fascism.’ Unfortunately this doesn’t exist. No one advocates it. No one articulates it. In the 1930s, Hitler had fascism and he talked about it. Islamic Fascism is a made up thing. . But it doesn’t matter: what matters is that it’s useful in generating fear, and serves that same larger purpose—providing a platform from which to operate.

If we can’t talk about it, then we shouldn’t be paying for it

..the 'grand plan’ is a Mideast transformation plan..Since we have this apocalyptic enemy, it’s either us or them. So in Iraq: the money goes for 'security’— American bases, and police power to defend those bases. The things we’ve destroyed we have not rebuilt or fixed. The things that we have protected have been the Oil Ministry and the Finance Ministry...Those bases in Iraq will be how we deal with (intimidate) the rest of the Middle East. Keep those other countries in line—politically, economically, and in every other way. This is clearly articulated, for example, in "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," actually written for Netanyahu: Iraq must first be changed, and from there we will be able to deal with our enemies—primarily, Syrians and Iranians. But this has nothing to do with America, or with American interests—in my opinion, anyway.

Who benefits from this kind of foreign policy? This needs to become a topic that can be publicly discussed. If we can’t talk about it, then we shouldn’t be paying for it.

Why We Fight - Jarecki documentary

Why We Fight - Jarecki documentary

"...people have begun to feel that mainstream journalism has been corrupted by forces for whom the truth is inconvenient."

- Eugene Jarecki

See the trailer from the new documentary "Why We Fight" by Eugene Jarecki. An Indiewire review is here. "Why We Fight" premiered at Sundance last January and won the Documentary Grand Jury Prize. According to the Boston Globe, Jarecki "lays out a historical through-line for American military involvement that stretches from Dwight Eisenhower's famous farewell speech naming the military-industrial complex 45 years ago this month to today."

The Boston Globe's Ty Burr says:

"...this is very much the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" should have been, and an experience audiences of every political conviction need to contend with."

David Erlich of the Spectator writes that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower's speech that became such a formative moment for Jarecki was even more prescient than most realize, as the complex of which President Eisenmhower spoke has become "both the means and the ends to America’s militaristic policies the world over."

Erlich adds:

[Jarecki's] work is perhaps the most successful attempt at unmasking the contraption with images as indelibly as Noam Chomsky has with words. The self-perpetuating and intangible transition from nation to empire demands an independent interpreter, a role Jarecki assumes without the arrogance that might taint his message. Acutely attuned to the complex’s evolving anatomy, Jarecki founded academic initiative The Eisenhower Institute as a means to monitor the forces shaping American foreign and defense policy. His voice demands to be heard, as the aural manifestation of political altruism can be found in the selflessness of his words and unflaggingly smooth affectation with which he delivers them.

An interview with the director can be read here at IFC.

Tim Kaine's Going To Do Just Fine

Tim Kaine's Going To Do Just Fine
Let's Talk About Things That Really Matter

I really don't understand the big fuss over Virginia governor Tim Kaine being
asked to voice the SOTU Democratic rebuttal. I don't believe it deserves to have rated such big headlines (see Jim VandeHei's article in the WaPo). I think that the Democrats should show Kaine off proudly for the nation to see. The consummate anti-fake political character, Kaine won Virginia's gubernatorial race by not being ashamed of telling people who he was.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel doesn't quite get the hype, either. There are many more important issues about which we could be truly concerned.

I think that Mr. Vandehei has missed something very important in his article - and I know about it because I - and many other bloggers - been a part of it. He speaks about the liberal bloggers who were dismayed when the Democratic establishment ate Howard Dean for lunch. Yeah, I understand. I was undoubtedly one of the most vocal of those disgusted bloggers.

There's a quote from James Boyce (Huffington Post) in the WaPo article about John Kerry becoming the big link between Democratic leadership and the liberal blogging community. This is where I need to step in and remind you that, for the past two solid years, Howard Dean's Democracy for America has been doing some amazing grassroots promotion of fresh new Democratic talent on the net. Moreover, where I'm personally involved is with former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards' One America Committee website. From last November until early January, Senator Edwards' One America Committee had given me, an unpaid citizen blogger, the opportunity to lead an ongoing debate over the role of religion in politics through the OAC website's Book Club, where we discussed the book "God's Politics" by Jim Wallis. Not only did I see a lot of interested discussion from the public, but Senator Edwards, his wife Elizabeth, and Jim Wallis participated directly by contributing a two-part Podcast discussion of the role of religion in politics. National Journal has recently named Senator Edwards' blog as the best candidate's blog. Edwards' direct involvement is being well received by the liberal blogging community.

I don't want to slight General Wesley Clark, either. For quite a while now, I've seen a tremendous internet response to his blogging efforts. I appreciate Senator John Kerry's recent attempts to reach out directly to the blogging community at Daily Kos and Huffington Post. Let's not pretend candidate involvement is something new, however. I think Senator Kerry is a good Senator and an ethical and intelligent man - but he tends to trail a step behind in creativity and innovation - perhaps a bit too cautious about what's blowing in the political winds. He was far too snail-like to defend himself from accusations made by the filthy Swift Boat attack machine. I suspect that his slow step and lack of clarity is what cost him the last election (along with some downright dubious electoral shenanigans in Ohio).

Sen. Chafee Votes His Individual Conscience

Sen. Chafee Votes His Individual Conscience

According to developing news at Raw Story, Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)will vote NO on Alito. I deeply respect seeing him carrying out his duty to vote along with the conscience of his constituents in the face of the wicked political pressure I know he faces.

Lincoln rocks.

Ebadi/Sahimi on Iran

Ebadi/Sahimi on Iran

I am placing this column here in its entirety, which is something I do not generally do. These voices are very important ones. I hope our political leaders will pay close attention to them and act accordingly.

Contra Costa Times
Sunday, Jauary 29, 2006

What to do about Iran?
Diffusing problem with democracy
United States will not level Iran's nuclear energy program with military strikes, sanctions; another approach must be taken
By Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Sahimi

LOST IN THE international fury over Iran's partial restart of its nuclear energy program, and the deplorable statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding Israel, has been the fact that respect for human rights and a democratic political system are the most effective deterrents against the threat that any aspiring nuclear power, including Iran, may pose to the world.

When the United States and its allies encouraged the shah in the 1970s to start Iran's nuclear energy program, they helped create the Frankenstein that has become so controversial today. If, instead, they had pressed the shah to undertake political reforms, respect human rights and release Iran's political prisoners, history could have been very different.

In the three decades since, India, South Africa, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan have joined the nuclear club -- and most people would acknowledge that the democracies among them are viewed today as the least threatening. In the 1980s, South Africa's apartheid regime made several nuclear bombs, but the democratic government of Nelson Mandela dismantled them. India has a nuclear arsenal, but few perceive the world's largest democracy as a global threat. Nor is Israel considered likely to be the first in the Middle East to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

But North Korea's nuclear program is a threat because its regime is secretive, its leader a recluse. The nuclear arsenal of Pakistan is dangerous because the military, which runs the country and is populated by Islamic extremists, helped create the Taliban and allowed Abdul Qadeer Khan to freely operate a nuclear supermarket.

Iran's nuclear program began accelerating around 1997 when the reform-minded Mohammad Khatami was elected president -- just as Iran was developing an independent press, and just before a reformist parliament was elected in 2000. The reformists supported the nuclear program but wanted it to be fully transparent and in compliance with Iran's international obligations. These were reassuring signs that it would not get out of control.

But instead of backing Iran's fledgling democratic movement, which would have led to nuclear transparency, the U.S. undercut it by demonizing Iran.

While Khatami proposed people-to-people dialogue between Americans and Iranians, Washington chose to block Iranian scholars, artists and authors from visiting the United States. Although Khatami helped the United States in Afghanistan, President Bush designated Iran a member of the "axis of evil."

By 2003, when it became clear that Khatami's reforms had stalled, the world started paying closer attention to Iran's nuclear program. So, what had demonizing Iran achieved?

The United States will not solve the nuclear problem by threatening military strikes or by dragging Iran before the U.N. Security Council. Although a vast majority of Iranians despise the country's hard-liners and wish for their downfall, they also support its nuclear program because it has become a source of pride for an old nation with a glorious history.

A military attack would only inflame nationalist sentiments. Iran is not Iraq. Given Iranians' fierce nationalism and the Shiites' tradition of martyrdom, any military move would provoke a response that would engulf the entire region, resulting in countless deaths and a ruined economy, not only for the region but for the world.

Imposing U.N. sanctions on Iran would also be counterproductive, prompting Tehran to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its "additional protocol." Is the world ready to live with such prospects?

So, what can the West do? Western nations should help the U.N. appoint a special human rights monitor for Iran. It would remind the General Assembly of Iran's human rights record annually, and strongly condemn it if the record keeps deteriorating. Contrary to the general perception, Iran's clerics are sensitive to outside criticism.

The World Bank should stop providing Iran with loans and, instead, work with nongovernmental organizations and the private sector to strengthen civil society. The West should support Iran's human-rights and democracy advocates, nominate jailed leaders for international awards and keep the cause in the public eye. Western nationsshould downgrade diplomatic relations if Iran continues violating basic human rights.

Iran is at least six to 10 years away from a nuclear bomb, by most estimates. The crisis is not even a crisis. There is ample time for political reform before Iran ever develops the bomb.

Meanwhile, the West should permit Iran a limited uranium enrichment program (as allowed under the nonproliferation treaty) under strict safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency -- but only when Tehran undertakes meaningful reforms, including freeing political prisoners and holding free and fair elections.

Lastly, the United States and Iran should enter direct negotiations. It is simply absurd for the United States and the most important nation in the Middle East not to communicate directly. The Bush administration should not be seduced by exile groups with no support in Iran. Developing democracy is an internal affair.

Democracy, in the end, will provide the ultimate safeguard against nuclear disaster, because a truly democratic Iran, backed by a majority of Iranians, would feel secure enough not to pursue dangerous military adventures.


Ebadi, a human rights advocate, was awarded the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize. Sahimi is a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Southern California

Political Cartoon

Soros is Back With Dreadful News

Soros is Back With Dreadful News

Who said this?

"U.S. power and influence has declined precipitously because of Iraq and the war on terror and that creates an incentive for anyone who wants to make trouble to go ahead and make it."

None other than George Soros, the man who offered (and spent) a considerable amount of his own money to try to convince American voters to defeat Bush in the 2004 election. If only he'd succeeded.

He's absolutely correct in saying that our influence has waned because of Iraq.

We now live in a dangerous and bizarre world, thanks to the utter failure of Bush to work respectfully with the world after 911. His idea of working well with others is convincing Senator Robert Byrd to vote for SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito while Democratic citizens who believe that he's wrong for the job are sending a shitstorm of "NO" pleas to their Senators.

What's wrong with Democrats in the Senate? They seem to have lost their backbone, forgotten their duty to their constituents, and lost their will to politically survive. When will the $%$%$%#s come alive?

Let me tell you, it's bizarre out here.

A mother of a young soldier killed in Iraq is hugging Hugo.

The majority of voters in Palestine are happy with Hamas.

In Iraq, the insurgents are wreaking holy havoc.

The cost of US light crude is highest since the hurricanes.

Iran's leader is hosting a Holocaust hootenany and he's not hiding his hope to harbor nuclear horrors.

It's a f!@king nightmare out here - and the once-successful dirty campaigner (now reduced to harping clown) Karl Rove is telling us how great the post-911 world is, thanks to Bush.

Isn't that a friggen hoot?


We're being told, by reliable investors, that oil may go up to as high as $262 a barrel. I'm not kidding.

262 dollars a barrel.

For all who've been mocking the Jimmy Carter presidency, weep now - because you will see that he did what he had to do, even though unpopular, when faced with his own oil crisis. Bush is too afraid of pissing off his cronies and losing Republican votes in an election year to do the right thing about this crisis. If he pulls his usual Bushit move, he'll do nothing but tell us to wear a g*d&$#*&d sweater while old folks freeze to death in their apartments. It's no surprise. It's clear that Bush's political party and the richest Americans mean more to him than the welfare of the people ever has.

I know that the President will give plenty of lip service to alternative energy sources in his SOTU speech because he thinks it will save his political ass, but I guarantee you that he won't boast too loudly about his oh-so-strong commitment to build as many new nuclear power plants as possible, paying back his pals in Big Energy and insuring that our children and the planet they'll inherit will face increased risk of disaster and disease. He won't talk too loudly about the nuclear waste he wants to buy from countries all around the world in order to recycle the dangerous material - as if we don't already have so much that we don't know where to put it anymore. I guess we haven't seen enough of our loved ones eaten away by cancer yet.

George Soros is back - saying "I told you so." Is it too late for crash conservation efforts? Will Bush even call for any? Has this mess of a President burned too many bridges and wasted too many of his days on his perpetual Republican campaign - on our tax dollars? Has he reduced the solid strength of our Military to a cracking veneer?

This is the worst President in American history, and I believe that we now have the weakest Congress to match. They are about to confirm a SCOTUS nominee who will complement the rot that is eating away at our nation's core. They are all failing us.

I'll see you in the mile-long line at the pumps soon - if you can afford it. If your sweater didn't do the trick and you've frozen to death like a lifeless human popsicle in your heatless apartment, maybe I'll catch you on the other side. If you make it through to the great recession, that'll be cool (literally and figuratively).