R.I.N.O. Hunting Season!!!

Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Pataki, the list goes on and on. They are some of the many moderate Republicans that I like. I respect them greatly. I don’t agree with them on all issues, but I know that not only are they people of integrity, but their hearts are in the right place and they have the better interests of this country in mind when they approach an issue.

It is sometimes said by pundits, including this blogger, that we should not hope for the demise of these moderate Republicans. That if the moderates are forced out of the GOP the Party will be left with right-wing ideologues and other whack jobs. In that vein of thinking, we are supposed to hope that Senator Chaffee gets re-elected next year. Well, I don’t!

I have been thinking about this over the last several weeks. Exactly why is it so important to try and stop the Republican Party from sliding to the right and wallowing in ideological demagoguery? I for one am tired of feeling bad for moderates with weak-spines. The Democratic Party was swept from power through the loss of a historical base, southern Democrats/Dixiecrats. From around 1960, when the Catholic John Kennedy was elected President, the Democratic Party philosophy shifted towards one of inclusion and integration. This did not sit well with a large number of Democrats, overwhelmingly from the south. Over the years these Dixiecrats defected to the Republican Party. You didn’t see a bunch of Republicans rushing to stabilize the Democratic Party and keep it from sliding to the left. No, they welcomed these defectors.

This exodus reached its zenith in 2004 when Dixiecrat extraordinaire Zell Miller endorsed President Bush for re-election over his own party’s candidate. He even went so far as to speak at their convention. Talk about adding insult to injury.

So, now there are vulnerable Republicans north of the Mason-Dixon Line, I say get your hunting rifles boys and girls (big joke, you know many Democrats with rifles?), because it is R.I.N.O. hunting season. For those not in the know; R.I.N.O. is a name given to moderate Republicans by the extreme right-wing of the GOP. It stands for Republican In Name Only. In fact this isn’t a bad name for them. We defeat these R.I.N.O.s in the states where we are strong, like Rhode Island, Maine, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Arizona, and soon a progressives and moderate coalition will have taken back the United States Congress from the right-wing “Zell”ots.

So, Senator Chaffee, if you are reading this and are wondering what you did to deserve this rallying call for your defeat I will say this; your only crime is serving as an enabler to people in “your party” that don’t represent your interests and do not have the interests of the people of Rhode Island at heart when they make policy decisions.

If you want to rectify the situation, defect from your party. Become an independent like Jim Jeffords of Vermont and ally yourself with the Democratic Caucus. Raise your kids and grandkids to think for themselves and not just join a party because it was Daddy’s party.

Until then, the message is clear: You’re going down!

Fantasy Government?

I was reading an interesting posting on someone else’s blog the other day about fantasy sports and how someone should put together a fantasy government league where people can build governments with certain politicians and other public figures. One would then track the success of these “fantasy governments” by the success of the various leaders.

This is, of course, absurd. You can’t measure the capabilities of a political leader in a hypothetical world. It is like saying that Al Gore would have handled the aftermath of 9/11 better than George W. Bush, or John Kerry would have handled the Hurricane relief efforts in the Gulf States better. You can say it, but only if you acknowledge how ludicrous you really sound.

One would like to believe that Al Gore would have been more level headed in the aftermath of 9/11, that he would not have gotten all Walker, Texas Ranger on us, but can anyone say that with certainty? I was pretty upset after 9/11. I was able to restrain my response after the terrorist attacks because I really have no power and no ability to do anything about anything. George W. Bush reacted, in part, in response to our great national blood thirst for revenge.

In addition, it seems logical that John Kerry would have had a more pragmatic and systematic approach to responding to natural disasters like the recent Hurricanes that struck the Southeastern United States, but are we sure of that? Would you bet your life on it? Is there anyone out there who knows for sure that John Kerry would have been his Navy Swift Boat self, charging up onto the beaches and chasing the Viet-Cong into the jungle, or would he have been Senator Kerry, voting for relief before voting against it? I believe the G.I. John would have showed up but have no evidence to support that hypothesis.

Hindsight is always 20/20. There is never any ambiguity about what needed to be done after someone has shown us how not to handle a situation. They say that we learn more from our mistakes then we do from our successes. If that is the case, George W. Bush is going to be smarter than Einstein by the time he leaves office. He has almost turned “fucking up” into an art form. Perhaps he should apply for a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts before he has it eliminated to pay for bullets in Iraq.

All that being said, who would you want to run this country? I am asking for creative thinking here. I don’t want to hear: Joe Biden or Bill Frist. If you lived in a perfect world, who would be President of the United States? Also, I don’t want to hear Bill Clinton, no people term-limited out of office. The person has to be alive, but not necessarily an American citizen.

Post a comment, anonymously if you want, with your suggestion.

A warning to the conservative Christian movement…

A warning to the conservative Christian movement…

There is a growing number of Americans who believe that faith should dictate law. They believe that the Judeo-Christian ethic should be the guiding principle in the American legal system. Long has the argument existed that the Founding Fathers of the United States did not want church and state to overlap. These religious zealots claim that the framers had not intended to have a government devoid of religious influence, but rather a state that respected the rights of all to worship freely. These are the same people who take strict constructionist views on most other issues. Nothing could be more hypocritical. They can never cite specific writings that indicate this intention. The fact that this philosophy is omitted from the Constitution and Bill of Rights makes it glaringly obvious that the Framers did not intend to force their personal beliefs on anyone. In fact, many of the first settlers in the area that was to become America were fleeing religious persecution in their home countries. Does it not speak to reason that they would want to avoid a repeat of that failed European model that they fled?

At the same time as this religious movement grows in both numbers and power, there is another even larger movement of Americans who are really uncomfortable with the role of religion, especially other people’s religions, in the everyday affairs of Americans. The problem with this “great silent majority” as Richard Nixon used to call them, is that they are not very organized and not particularly politically motivated. But that could change quite rapidly if the religious crusaders continue to try to push the envelope ever further to the right.

This great silent majority is not made up of God hating atheists! It is made up of a wide variety of people, much like the religious right. There are people who don’t believe in God, as well as those who are spiritual without subscribing to any particular faith. Then there are those who are religious but do not regularly attend church services. The last group is the most perplexing to the religious fanatics; they are the people who worship on a regular basis. They are the people who sit next to the bible thumpers each week in church. The difference is these religious folks are uncomfortable with making their religious beliefs the norm in this country. They are people who believe unwaveringly in their particular God but do not feel it is their place to push their beliefs on others. They respect that there is diversity in belief. Not like the evangelical Christians in Philadelphia which actively try to convert Jews. That is despicable, as is most all missionary activity.

There was a letter to the editor in a recent edition of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin:

Atheists cannot take God out of our nation

In the beginning, something or someone created this universe and gave it existence. Whatever it was, we called it God. There were no people then, so there were no churches, no religion, only God. Then it is understood that God is not a member of any church or religion.

Our founding fathers believed in and recognized this creator when they formed our nation, a republic of "we the people," that there is a higher power and authority than our elected leaders. A spirituality that is uncorruptable and immutable on justice for our nation.

One would think, "what a wonderful concept." Our President Bush must be accountable to this higher authority. However, presently in our courts, a religious group of atheists is trying to remove God from our nation's pledge. While it might be possible to eliminate churches and religion (manmade), it is impossible to eliminate God (spiritual).

Atheists, whose religion denies God, cannot deny existence. Not only do they want to emasculate our nation, they want to take the heart out of it.

Our courts, ironically, acknowledge a higher authority. They should reject this attack on our pledge.

Ken Chang
Kaneohe

Can you believe this caveman? I mean, I respect everyone’s right to worship in whatever way they see fit (as long as it doesn’t infringe on me), but this stooge hammered out an angry letter filled with fiction and figured no one would notice it. Well, I did. Let’s deconstruct, because this is a fairly good representation of a fanatically religious person’s argument.

In the first paragraph Mr. Chang attempts to explain the “Big Bang” Theory in religious terms. As an agnostic I must acknowledge that this theory is a possibility. I have not the proof to dis-prove it, so I will concede that. But Ken throws out a great big gigantic “WE”. Who is the “we” of which he speaks? Atheists would reject this theory. Granted they are a vast minority in this country, but should we force them to live in a country that embraces a theory contrary to theirs when it is not necessary to its basic functioning? Is that how we should treat theological minorities? What about the many religious sects that believe differently?

In the second paragraph Mr. Chang proves my initial point with the Founding Fathers argument. Hey Kenny, can we get a citation for your representation of their beliefs. I have read the Federalist Papers and see no evidence that Madison, Hamilton, and Co. had any intention of including a Judeo-Christian philosophy in the central legal underpinnings of this country.

In the rest of his letter, Kenny-Boy blithers about being held accountable to a higher power, etc. Fine, if Mr. Bush wants to view the world that way, that is great for him, but I do not. It is the stated policy in many school districts that all children stand and recite the Pledge. I would never force my child to recite it, ever. Not just because I don’t think they should have to bear false witness, but also because I deplore the “Hitler Youthesque” manner in which children must pledge allegiance to our nation. If my child wants to hate this country, that is their right. When we make the Pledge truly voluntary then I will be okay with whatever content. What if a stated Satanist’s child wanted to say “…one Nation, under Satan…” Would that be acceptable? I think so.

The religious right is on a crusade, not unlike the Crusades undertaken to control Jerusalem. These are to control America. I envision a country where their rights are respected and revered, but not at the expense of everyone else. Not in my country. Over my dead body! They can have my country when they “pry it out of my cold dead hands!”

A 1/3 Life Crisis?

In the midst of much ruminating on my job, and my dissatisfaction with the direction of my career, I turned today to a career profile test offered on http://www.monster.com/. The test is provided by some random website known as Tickle. It asks a series of questions and then gives you a brief summary of your style. The results are brief and offer you the opportunity to learn more by buying the full results. I did not do that, so I cannot vouch for the contents. My results were as follows.

The right jobs for you would allow you to be Strategic and Creative:

As a Strategic type, you want to be able to express yourself and your ideas through work. Sure there's a time and place for rules and procedures, but when a good thought strikes you, you don't want it to be boxed into one way of thinking. You're willing to go outside the rules if there's a chance that the risk will reap big rewards.

You are stronger than most when it comes to generating ideas. And because of this, it might sometimes feel easier to take on all aspects of a job yourself instead of wasting time explaining it to someone else who might not "get it" like you do. But because you have so many ideas and are willing to take on so much, you might find that you sometimes have trouble finishing every project you start. Your diplomacy and adaptability make you a valuable asset. But your need to feel invested in a company that allows you to express your original ways of thinking will ultimately impact how happy you are in the workplace.

That sounds pretty close to me. I guess I will need to start looking for a new job as soon as I can as my present employer certainly does not hit the criteria listed above.

Apologies for my long absense. It is hard to motivate to write blog pieces when one is in Europe! But I am back and I am working on a number of pieces to be posted shortly. If you have any topics you think are not being covered, add a comment here and I may address it.

The maturity of "Old Europe" and real "Western Values"

You often hear people talk about “western values”. The phrase is usually used in relation to all those values that we in the western/European world have in common. We don’t give it much thought. It rolls in and we accept the concept without critically thinking about if there is any logic behind it. The idea being that western values includes Europeans and us and the connection being that our country was founded on European enlightenment principles. So therefore we must share some progressive European idea about how the world is and how humans should interact. European democracies and the United States share a value of freedom and liberties but clearly that is where those similarities end.

I would posit that the way Americans and Europeans view liberty and freedom are different. Americans prize above all else the individual liberties, the right of each person in the United States to self-determination. In Europe the emphasis of liberty and freedom is a societal belief that freedom isn’t truly achieved if it isn’t shared equally by all in society. There are subtle variations from country to country in Europe on how this is played out, but the common theme is the importance of the society. Europeans, conservative and progressive alike, take great pride in the social welfare of their people.

Some in American society value individual liberties more than others, libertarians being the extreme example, but all Americans prize individual opportunity. Our society holds entrepreneurial spirit above all else. Look at who we covet in our country; Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Cuban and others. Our nation reveres the entrepreneur, the self-made man who amasses great wealth and/or economic power.

The dollar is the singular driving force behind most all decisions. That is not to say that other things are not valued on an individual basis, but you would have a difficult time convincing me that anything is more important in our society then money. Look at the indicators that we use to measure the strength of our society. They are economic indicators; economic growth, new home sales, the purchase of durable goods, the performance of stocks and bonds. You rarely see headlines touting how many people have been lifted out of poverty or how many uninsured people have been transferred into the ranks of those with health insurance. Likewise the economic indicator of consumer confidence is not held as particularly important by our Federal Reserve Bank.

I know this sounds a lot like America bashing, but tough luck. You’ll get no apology from me. You’ll have to sit there in the ring, like Sonny Liston and take the beating that Cassius is handing out. I am not apologizing. To me there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. People who unquestioningly accept all facets of their country as inherently good are not patriotic, they are nationalistic. Not unlike the Germans who sat on their hands as the Jews in their neighborhoods were packed in freight trains and driven off. Patriotism is something less superficial. When one is a patriot, one loves their country. It does not preclude them from seeing inherent faults. In fact, patriotism drives one to make their country all that it can be, including addressing its weaknesses.

European societies also value liberty and freedom but the emphasis is not placed on the individual but on society. Obviously individual freedoms such as free speech and religious choice in Europe are important and valued as well, but there are limits to the lengths that Europeans will go to protect these freedoms. A case in point is the fact that hate speech is not protected in Germany and in fact, fascist parties are barred from participating in the Bundestag.

You can see that in how fiercely people in Europe protect their welfare states. Of course Europeans value resources and wealth. There is a great entrepreneurial drive in Europe, but it is different. There is a far smaller percentage of mega-rich, but there is also far fewer mega-poor. Societies in Europe have made a decision, conscious or otherwise, to care for all members of society.

I have this notion of societal maturity that is spinning around in my head. Perhaps Donald Rumsfeld hit on something when he referred to Old Europe and the United States’ closeness with the new nations in Eastern Europe. Europe is old, but with that age comes a maturity which America is not yet capable of. We are, in many ways, like the nations of Eastern Europe; immature and unsophisticated. Perhaps when we have been around the block as many times as “Old Europe” we will have matured to the point where we see the value in societal strength as opposed to individual strength. Until then we are doomed to suffer growing pains.

The two party system sucks…

Close your eyes and imagine if you will (metaphorically, don’t really close them or you won’t be able to read my sage words) an America with more than two major political parties. I know there are many other Parties in the U.S., but none of them are significant enough to make a substantive difference. Many would argue that Ross Perot’s Reform Party enabled Bill Clinton to unseat George H.W. Bush in 1992 and then 8 years later the strong showing of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in several key battleground states cost Al Gore the 2000 election. I concede that this is all true, but these are not viable opposition parties. The Greens do not have any nationally elected members of Congress and very few state elected officials. Likewise, the Reform Party is not viable as it has essentially imploded since the strong showings in 1992 and 1996. No credible liberal would argue that Ralph Nader was a viable candidate for the presidency of this country. I think we can all agree that his administration would be like Jimmy Carter to the eighth power.

I am sitting here on a chilly Danish afternoon reflecting from afar on the state of affairs of the country that I love so much. I find my musings on America are much more clear and enlightened when I am not actually in the States. Perhaps that is because it is easier to contrast the differences. Perhaps it is because when in Denmark I look back at America fondly and think about all the ways to make it better, make it the best it can be.

Let’s face it; the United States is not all that it can be to paraphrase the old U.S. Army slogan. Perhaps that is the magic of America, the always striving and never achieving. Ours is certainly an ambitious venture; Home of free and land of the brave, respecting all, valuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are all very worthy and honorable goals. So why can’t we achieve them? It is because our political system makes that all but impossible. I am not saying that our constitutional democracy and congressional model are flawed. In fact, I think that they are quite adequate considering the low intellectual level of many of the officials elected to run it.

The problem is that our system accepts only two different possibilities. I have denigrated George W. Bush on this Blog many times for his inability to see the shades of grey inherent in all public policies. It is always easiest to see things as black and white, but that just isn’t how things work sometimes. What if it isn’t just George W. Bush? What if it is our entire system? Look at the facts. Throughout our history, with few exceptions, we have only ever had two options. Initially there were the Federalists (those who favored the supremacy of the federal government) and the Anti-Federalists (those who favored the supremacy of the states). To Europeans looking on, our party system must seem painfully inadequate. Talk to an Englishman about the difficulty with getting all of the party on board with a particular policy objective, and they will be shocked at how difficult that is. The whips in the House of Commons are much more adept at actually whipping the backbenchers into line when an important vote is scheduled. In the United States that is nearly impossible.

Imagine if instead of two parties we had four or even five. As it stands now the Democratic Party is far too diverse to mount much of an oppositional challenge to Bush and Co. When party unity is required there is simply too much diversity of opinion to make much of a show of unity. This is evidenced when there are primaries for presidential elections, the Democrats always field at least a half dozen candidates who could be potential Presidents. When the GOP has open primaries there are usually only one or two candidates, though 2008 may be different.

What if the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, people like Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold, split off and joined the Green Party. Then you would have middle of the road Democrats like John Kerry who would maintain the party. Those Democrats who are members of the infamously centrist Democratic Leadership Council, think Joe Lieberman or Hilary Clinton, could form a socially moderate, fiscally moderate party.

Likewise I think you would find the Republican Party would likely split. Though they make a good show of party unity, I think that is a much easier feat when you control both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government. You would have a religious conservative party on the right and a socially moderate, fiscally conservative party as well. Can you imagine if the long silent moderate Republicans awoke to the power that they actually hold but are convinced by neo-cons that they don’t? After shaving their long Rip Van Winkle beards, they would wield considerable power within our government. I talk to Democratic friends about the vulnerability of moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and as a liberal I must say that the prospect of adding Democrats is attractive, but as a political scientist I believe that the elimination of moderates in the GOP is probably not a good long term goal. Chafee and his fellow moderate colleagues play an important role in keeping the religious conservatives who run the Republican Party in check. (But then again, are they really?)

The stated strength of a two party system is that they are far more stable than multi-party ones because government composed of coalitions tend to collapse much more easily, but I don’t buy that argument. Just because our government is not collapsing regularly does not mean that the U.S. government is more stable then the government in Japan, Israel or Germany.

The fact is that there aren’t just two ways to think about policy issues, and just because someone is liberal on education issues does not mean they are liberal on defense issues. Simply taking anyone who is liberal on any one issue and throwing them into one party means that they will inherently disagree on many other issues, thereby making it difficult to build consensus on any number of issues which need to be addressed as urgently as the issue they agree on. Until we have viable candidates that are willing to run on a third party platform we will never achieve the kind of voter turn out that is enjoyed in other parts of the world. The success of our very republic depends on it.

The Death Tax Returns…

This week was supposed to be the week that Congress voted on the permanent repeal of the Estate Tax (also know as the Inheritance Tax or "Death Tax"). When Congress first enacted the Estate Tax in 1916 they asserted that it would help reduce concentrations of power and wealth in the hands of the few and promote equality of economic opportunity. In essence it would "break up the swollen fortunes of the rich."

This sentiment is not an attractive one to Americans. We as a people are in principle against any kind of transfer of wealth and especially when it is the greedy hands of our government reaching in to transfer wealth from hard working rich people to lazy poor people. That’s how the argument goes, isn’t it?

According to the Center for Tax Justice the Estate Tax raises revenue from wealthiest 1.4% of Americans. In fact as much as two-thirds of it comes from the top 0.2% of Americans. Is there any credence to the assertion that we are punishing hard work and rewarding laziness? In fact, there is not. I agree, people who work hard and amass a fortune through toil and tribulation are what makes America special. I do not think that kids who inherit their parent’s fortunes are in any way, shape, or form special. Think Paris Hilton or Nicole Richie! In fact, it is not only poor liberals who feel this way. Over a century ago, steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie said: "The parent who leaves his son enormous wealth generally deadens the talents and energies of the son, and leads him to lead a less useful and less worthy life than he otherwise would."

Conservatives and Libertarians alike line up and chant the mantra that the Estate Tax punishes non-farm family business owners and family farmers and makes it difficult for family owned businesses to be passed on to the next generation. This should be seen for what it is; all smoke and mirrors. I would refer you back to the 1.4% and 0.2% data I listed above. But if that hasn’t got you convinced, consider this; only 1 out of every 20 family farmers leaves a taxable estate. Even those farmers that do inherit taxable estates only pay an average of $5000 in taxes on it. Of the total revenue raised by the Estate Tax, only 0.5% of is attributable to farm assets. Today AG Weekly, a news source for farmers, published an editorial saying that a permanent repeal of the Estate Tax would be bad for rural America.

Non-farm family businesses are also only a small part of the Estate Tax. They amount to less than 3% of total assets for estates worth less than $2.5 million. The fact is that the Estate Tax code offers many incentives to heirs that want to keep family businesses going, but they don't help wealthy heirs that want to sell the family business. And why should they? If anything, the Estate Tax actually encourages heirs to keep businesses in the family rather than selling.

Opponents of the Death Tax will push forward with their attempts to ensure that large estates are not “double taxed”. In the end the perceptions will remain. Those in favor of the tax believe in the original rational as explained by Congress in 1916. They will continue to point out that the amassing of a majority of the wealth in this country into the hands of the few is bad for society. Those who oppose the Death Tax will assert that they should not have to subsidize society through the redistribution of resources from the mega-wealthy to the mega-poor. In fact, the resources aren’t even going to the poor; they are going to pay for a war in Iraq that will benefit the rich. The poor are already paying for the war with the blood of their children. It is time the rich paid their fair share too.

Jules from Pulp Fiction says...

Ezekiel 25:17.

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.

Click this link for fun!

Dubya is a biblical scholar. Do you think he read this one? Seems to be all about him doesn't it? Is he the tyranny of evil men? Or is the those that attempt to poison and destroy my brothers?

What do you think?

Handout or Hand-up?

The Bush administration bristles at the very mention of race playing a factor in the slow response to the disaster on the Gulf Coast of the United States. They find it simply unfathomable that anyone would even mention it. The American people are deeply divided on this subject. Two thirds of African-Americans believe that had this occurred in a predominantly white neighborhood the response would have been faster. On the other side of the coin, two-thirds of white Americans believe that race was not a factor in the slow response. Why the disconnect?

I have to agree that the Bush administration didn’t fall asleep at the switch because a majority of the people stranded were black. I also agree with rapper Kanye West when he says that President Bush doesn’t care about black people. How, you may be asking, do I reconcile those two statements? Simple! Bush didn’t neglect the stranded people in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama because they were black; he neglected them because they were poor (and black).

How do I know Bush doesn’t care about black people? How do I know the sun is going to rise tomorrow? I just know. If Bush cared about the African-American community he would recognize that a staggering percentage of the poor people in the south are black. If he cared about this he might consider rolling back his tax cut for the richest 1% of Americans (or as he calls them; his base) and using that extra money to launch a massive anti-poverty initiative, kind of like the one he is funding in Iraq.

This initiative would not have to be the government handouts that Republicans so often rail against (unless it is a handout designed to bail out one of their rich friends, think tax cuts here!). The effort could be designed instead as a “hand-up”. Invest in urban and rural poor communities to improve the educational systems and provide grants and interest free loans to people who want to focus on economic redevelopment in these communities.

Poverty and all of its side effects cannot be alleviated until we get serious about sharing the American Dream with all people in this country. Poverty is not a race issue. There are many, many poor people of all races, but we do need to stop and ask why so many of the people stuck in New Orleans were black. We do need to ask if the situation would have been bungled as badly if the people in New Orleans had been white. Would the genocide in Rwanda have been tolerated if the people had been white? Would the genocide in Bosnia have been tolerated if the people being executed and buried in mass graves had been Christian and not Muslim? These questions are important to reflect upon.

I believe the best way to eliminate poverty is to enable people. Everyone has heard the cliché about giving a man a fish and he eats for a day and teaching a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Community empowerment and redevelopment sends a compelling message to poor neighborhoods that we are committed to helping them help themselves. Give them pride of ownership and you will find that the crime, vandalism and gang violence that blight poor neighborhoods will decrease. But government investment in communities cannot simply be on beautifying neighborhoods and creating new jobs. We cannot continue to simply slap on a new coat of paint and pretend like the problems have gone off down the yellow brick road.

If there are no educated and skilled workers in these communities then the businesses will either fail or move away. This effort needs to be accompanied massive infusions of capital into education and worker training programs. We need to build more and better schools, and yes I agree with George Bush, we need to hold teachers accountable. But if they are to be held accountable, then we need to equip them with the tools they need to succeed. There is nothing worse then an unfunded mandate coming out of Washington, especially when states and local communities (particularly those that are struggling the most) have no hope of funding these programs themselves.

We need to pony up to the bar and pay the tab. If a couple of rich spoiled Laguna Beach brats have to pay double tax on their inheritance, so be it. More on that soon…

911 Is A Joke!

The Bush administration thinks that it is preposterous to assert that emergency services are slower in poor, predominantly black neighborhoods! It is not a new theory. The very sage, very wise philosophers Flavor Flav and Chuck D mentioned this hypothesis in the early 1990s. Let me refresh your memory.

Hit me
Going, going, gone
Now I dialed 911 a long time ago
Don’t you see how late they’re reactin’
They only come and they come when they wanna
So get the morgue truck and embalm the goner
They don’t care ’cause they stay paid anyway
They teach ya like an ace they can’t be betrayed
I know you stumble with no use people
If your life is on the line then you’re dead today
Late comings with the late comin’ stretcher
That’s a body bag in disguise y’all betcha
I call ’em body snatchers quick they come to fetch ya?
With an autopsy ambulance just to dissect ya
They are the kings ’cause they swing amputation
Lose your arms, your legs to them it’s compilation
I can prove it to you watch the rotation
It all adds up to a funky situation

So get up get, get get down
911 is a joke in yo town
Get up, get, get, get down
Late 911 wears the late crown

911 is a joke

Everyday they don’t never come correct
You can ask my man right here with the broken neck
He’s a witness to the job never bein’ done
He would’ve been in full in 8 9-11
Was a joke ’cause they always jokin’
They the token to your life when it’s croakin’
They need to be in a pawn shop on a
911 is a joke we don’t want ’em
I call a cab ’cause a cab will come quicker
The doctors huddle up and call a flea flicker
The reason that I say that ’cause they Flick you off like fleas
They be laughin’ at ya while you’re crawlin’ on your knees
And to the strength so go the length
Thinkin’ you are first when you really are tenth
You better wake up and smell the real flavor
Cause 911 is a fake life saver

So get up, get, get get down
911 is a joke in yo town
Get up, get, get, get down
Late 911 wears the late crown

Ow, ow 911 is a joke

Does this sound timely to anyone? I hope President Bush enjoys that lemonade on Trent Lott’s porch!

Showing Michael Brown the door…

So, its official, the Bush administration has officially set the horse judge out to pasture. It was revealed today that Federal Emergency Management Agency director Mike Brown has resigned for reasons that he described as "in the best interest of the agency and best interest of the president." This blogger wonders whether Karl Rove personally delivered the wakizashi. Three days after being yanked by the administration from his onsite command of the hurricane relief effort Brown told the Associated Press that "the focus has got to be on FEMA, what the people are trying to do down there."

My question is; how did this guy get this job in the first place? Before receiving his appointment as Executive Director of FEMA, Brown was the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, (IAHA), from 1989-2001. After numerous lawsuits were filed against the organization over disciplinary actions Brown was forced to resign. So it appears that our President has no trouble putting an ethical question mark in charge of disaster readiness and response. I guess that is not surprising since Dubya has failed at every venture that he has attempted with the possible exception of politics. I say politics and not being President because by any objective analysis George W. Bush has been a failure as a President as well, but he and his political team have been able to spin a perception of success.

This hurricane has brought to the fore an unspinnable situation which shows the cronism that exists in this administration. We were unprepared! We revamped FEMA and put it inside the Department of Homeland Security to increase inter-agency communications and improve readiness response. Nothing that anyone could have done would have stopped the levies from breaking, but one would expect competent and capable leadership from the administration. They would have you believe that this is a failure of local leadership. Don’t believe the hype!

I am not here to defend any local officials, but this was a multi-state disaster and none could be expect to mobilize the resources needed to respond adequately. This was and is a federal issue and a failure on their part to: A be adequately prepared, and B. respond appropriately to the scope of the disaster.

The failure of leadership was our President continuing his never-ending summer vacation while the hurricane gained strength over the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of rushing back to Washington to oversee efforts he flew to California to hype up his Medicare reforms. (political lesson, never miss a chance to hype up your policies, even when evacuation efforts are languishing)

In the end, the words you hear most out of the Bush administration is that they don’t want to play the “Blame Game”. It seems to me that the only people who consistantly don’t want to assign blame and learn from the failures are the people who are at fault. What is the Bush administration afraid of? They don’t have to run for re-election and they don’t care what naysayers think. They never have and they never will.

In the mean time, Brown is out the door. He insists this is his idea, for the good of the country and the President, so the focus stays on the relief and rebuilding efforts. I hope people will see that for what it is. Brown has been handed the sword, he is expected to fall on it and take one for the team. How long til he lands his next seven figures job that seem to float around for persistent neo-con failure half-wits?

Chief Justice William Rehnquist was a brilliant jurist, but he was also a Conservative ideologue!

I know I should be writing some eloquent eulogy to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of our longest serving Supreme Court justices, but I just can’t bring myself to do it. This is a man who embodied judicial activism for over 30 years. That is not a concept I have a great deal of trouble with in general, though I find it viciously hypocritical that conservatives would throw that terminology around to describe only judges who favor granting homosexuals civil rights and holding corporations accountable for the environmental footprint they leave on this country, and not the role of religion in our government and the rights of minority groups.

It has to be said, Chief Justice Rehnquist was a decent man. He was the first to come forward in the aftermath of the disgusting Terry Schiavo debacle and criticize neo-conservatives like Tom “the Hammer” Delay, when they railed against an out of control Judiciary that was taking the law into its own hands. He pointed out that this is in fact the job of the Judiciary, to interpret and clarify ambiguity that is inherent in all laws. In fact, the Judiciary has done a relative good job dealing with the political blather that is churned out by our rather sophomoric Congress. One can hardly blame the Judiciary for the atrocious laws that our elected officials churn out on a regular basis. It seems to me that 90% of the time the laws that the Legislative Branch passes are totally nonsensical so that it is near impossible to implement the laws, but the politicians can say that they took action and blame the people who implement the public policies.

In spite of his apparent reverence for the Judiciary, Chief Justice Rehnquist has taken some positions in cases that should be really troubling for a lot of people in this country. I guess the best approach is to start at the top and work our way down. William Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1972 by Tricky Dick Nixon. He was an extremely conservative appointment for the relatively moderate Nixon. Almost immediately he grabbed the mantel of conservative anchor on the Burger court. It is hardly surprising that he came so vehemently to the defense of the Judiciary and its very important role, since he was often regarded as an advocate of judicial supremacy. If you have any question about this, you need only look back to 2000 when he and his Supreme Court stepped in to decide the Presidential Election. He said that in times of uncertainty that a strong and truly supreme court should step in a take control. This is troubling to many, as they are lifetime appointments and accountable to no one once they are installed.

Rehnquist has voted against the expansion of school desegregation plans. He dissented in Roe v. Wade (1973). In his career Rehnquist has consistently voted in favor of school prayer and capital punishment. What endeared Rehnquist to the religious right was his leadership in establishing more governmental leniency towards state aid for religion (a clear and absolutely no-no to any Constitutional purist such as myself). This was evidenced in his writing for the majority in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, approving a school voucher program that aided parochial schools.

Then there are his positions on all things regarding the 14^th Amendment. One of Rehnquist’s biggest legacies will be his push for State’s rights. He envisioned the 14^th Amendment being interpreted as narrowly as possible, thus creating a system where deference was given to State’s (some might find it hypocritical that he then stepped in and overruled the Florida Supreme Court in the Bush v. Gore [2000] decision).

In the end, it may be his State’s rights push that will also hurt his legacy. Think about it, many of the problems that we face in our society are either the result of a lack of uniformity or because tasks are delegated to the States that really ought to be handled by the federal government. I can name a host of examples but I will give you just a few. Firstly, why do we delegate the control over core educational curriculum to ass-backward States like Kansas who then turn around and throw out all scientific methodology to turn science classes into faith based teaching opportunities? It seems to me that we should give a certain amount of discretion to local school districts, like deciding what should be on the lunch menu and designing school bus routes, but we need to a stand against dogmatic ignorance which exists in large pockets in this country.

The other great, and particularly timely, example is the handling of disaster relief. We need only look at the Gulf Coast of the United States in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to see the danger of ambiguity in the roles of federal and state officials. Clearly, the relief efforts of the disaster should have been the responsibility of the federal government. There is no way that the three poor states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama could have mustered the resources to take the decisive action that was urgently needed. But because so much discretion is now given to States, it was unclear for several days what role federal officials should play. This ambiguity did not exist in the 1960s when President Kennedy federalized the National Guard and sent them in to Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas to enforce desegregation efforts. Granted, the scope is different, but the unambiguous action taken by the federal government in the 60s, without regard for State’s rights interests clearly shows the influence the Rehnquist Court has had.

So we move on, Rehnquist is gone though his legacy will be felt for years to come. President Bush has moved to get John Roberts, a protégé of William Rehnquist’s, installed as the 19^th Chief Justice of the United States of America. What will his legacy be? Only time will answer that question.

Wasted Resources and Racism in America!

My sister-in-law recently turned us on to a new show on MTV. I am definitely not part of the MTV target demographic, but we have found ourselves inexplicably drawn in to Laguna Beach: the Real Orange County. Who can say why certain things attract certain people. I guess I find it equal parts California breeze-heads and sociological experiment with the rich white youth of America. I am drawn to breeze-heads because I so desperately miss California right now. I am only a year removed but would give anything to go back. I am drawn to the sociological experiment because as a social scientist I find it completely fascinating to observe the high school brats in their element in a way I thought to be impossible.

Some people question the reality aspect of the show because the very act of adding cameras to the equation ensures that the sample is tainted. People never act the same in front of cameras. The extroverts bubble over like a kettle left on high blasting hot air at a nauseating rate. The introverts (of which there are none on this show) shy away from the camera and thus you never get to know anything about them.

The thing that strikes me about Laguna Beach is that these are the children of the richest people in Southern California and yet when they open their mouths to speak it is like feeding my arm into a wheat combine. It is painful to see the children of so much privilege and opportunity communicate in such an obviously ignorant manner. Watching the news coverage of the Hurricane in Louisiana one quickly realizes that the mastery of the English language is woefully lacking in many parts of the United States, but at least the poor people in New Orleans have an excuse. Abject poverty and an educational system that is completely ineffective and stifled by a never-ending string of tight budgets and not enough money has made it impossible for these people to be taught properly. Laguna Beach, California could not be further from New Orleans if it was on Neptune, yet these children of lawyers, doctors, business entrepreneurs and Hollywood moguls sound every bit as “poor” as people who have lived in crippling poverty all their lives. There isn’t one person living in the poor neighborhoods of south Louisiana that wouldn’t trade up for the opportunities afford these California breeze-heads and it is sad to see so much wasted.

I guess I must really sound like an old curmudgeon but I weep for the future if this is the so-called elite in the United States. No wonder China and India are kicking our asses in everything from manufacturing to high-tech. The sooner China deposes the United States as the number one economy in the world, the better. We are slow, fat and lazy. Much like Rome before the Visigoths sacked it 410 A.D. the United States is a corrupt society in need of “righting”.

What kind of a world do we live in where hundreds of thousands of New Orleaneans are ignored by FEMA for days, but when mudslides happen in Laguna Beach federal officials are on the ground almost immediately afterwards. I’ll tell you, we live in a world where “money talks and bullshit walks” people. Kanye West said it best: the federal government wasn’t faster at responding because George W. Bush doesn’t care about black people. What the Gulf Coast needed was urgent, decisive action, in essence, the President the led us head long into Iraq. What they got was a guy in a pair of khakis and a denim shirt posing for photos, a man with no answers and nothing to add to the effort except for blowhard babble.

So, dear readers, will I boycott Laguna Beach: the Real Orange County for all time? No, these kids are hilarious to mock. They are stupid and they revel in their own stupidity. Who can’t see the humor in that? But at the same time, I know that there are those who watch believing that these kids are great and they want to be just like them. They, of course, are the real problem. Not a bunch of breeze-heads living sliding houses on the left coast.

Where were all the first responders? How about the second responders? Third?

Watching the events as they unfold in New Orleans and many other parts of the Gulf Coast of the United States is horrifying. I am glad I waited a few days to right this because I have allowed my anger and outrage subside a bit. As such there will be far less blood-spitting vitriolic language in this post then there likely should be.

I am on a weekly e-mail group where a friend of mine from college sends out an e-mail with a question for everyone to ponder. We do and then some people each week reply to all with their opinions on the question. Today my friend wrote her weekly question asking what people could do to help from far away. I responded by saying that it is difficult for people in far off States to be of much help. And speaking as someone in the far off State of Hawaii that is very frustrating. I guess I moved here for that remote, detached feeling, but at times it can make you feel isolated in a bad way.

What the people in the Southeast need is money, money and more money. People who want to help should donate to the United Way, Red Cross, or other reputable charities (this is not the time to try out a new charity).

We also need to pressure our government to put more money into our own country and less into others (namely Iraq). This is not George W. Bush's fault, or Congresses for that matter, but it is a fact that our infrastructure is neglected. Bridges, roads, railroads, harbors and transit systems, sewers, water mains, landfills and power lines, our country neglects the details because it is the stuff that no one thinks about until something major happens, and then a policy window opens, as my old public policy Professor Juliet Musso might say.

More money to the Army Corp of Engineers would not have stopped the levees from breaking, those levees were built to withstand a tidal surge of 15 feet maximum, and by all accounts the surge from Hurricane Katrina was 20-25 feet. More money for Homeland Security (and not for searching backpacks in Grand Central Station, and other important anti-terrorist measures, I mean more money for HOMELAND security) would have gotten Federal boots on the ground faster. It is unbearable to watch as people wait for help that simply isn’t coming. I was glad to see that the Tulane University football team arrived safely in Houston last night, but what about the 30% of the population of New Orleans that lives in abject poverty? What about them? We need to get money on the ground faster.

In the days after the disaster I was really angry that people were looting and taking "advantage" of the situation, but I have reversed myself. It is clear now that in the absence of outside help, people have to help themselves. I don't blame the looters, most are just trying to survive. There are reports that some parts of the disaster areas have not even been visited be relief officials. These people have lost everything that they have spent a lifetime building. They need help and our government is FAILING them.

We need to get money to aid organizations to get them on the ground pronto. Why were we so fast in Banda Aceh and Phuket but so slow in Shreveport and Biloxi? It is outrageous. This is the reason we have a Federal government. All the other stuff is icing on the cake, this is why we have a Federal government. And Homeland Security is failing its first test miserably. I am afraid for the next terrorist attack.

Of course, the reason we got money to Banda Aceh and Phuket and other tsunami stricken areas so quickly was because it was clear who was in charge and who was running the show. In the United States, when it comes to delivering public policies efficiently and quickly, we have way too many levels of Government. In the immediate aftermath it was clear that nobody in Government knew who should be doing what. There were individual city and State efforts being undertaken along with federal efforts, but no one was talking to anyone else. We have too much government (never thought you’d hear the freak blogger say that, did you?). We needed the federal government to come in, federalize the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama (as well as the Florida and Texas) National Guards, they needed to take control on the ground. But our Homeland Security Department, brand new and touted as a rapid response ready department, failed to take clear and decisive action either before or after this event. It should not have been a surprise; the Army Corp of Engineers has gamed out this scenario years ago.

Homeland Security are not to blame for what happened, but they are to blame for react so poorly to it. They should have been prepared in advance. If there are not enough National Guards personnel to handle this, then some need to be pulled out of Iraq to deal with it. That is, after all, why we have a “National” Guard in the first place.

Our President’s Press Secretary tells us it is not time to politicize this event and point fingers. He is half right, we shouldn’t politicize it. The President should steer clear of this area and let his federal government handle to situation on the ground. But Scott McClellan is also half wrong. We should point fingers. We should be trying to figure out how we were so completely ill-prepared to deal with this situation. It is the only way we will ever be ready next time.

So the synopsis answer to my friend’s question: Send money! Oh, and voting next time would be a good idea too. Not for any particular Party, but voting for candidates who think we should invest as much in the real American democracy as we do in fictitious Iraqi democracy.

Ahh, the good ol' days

I received this e-mail from forwarded to me...

Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:

"You can support the troops but not the president."--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Funny thing is, we won that war without a single killed in action.

But there is no oil in Bosnia...

The Poor Get Forgotten Again…

It seems every time we turn around we see a new study talking about the poor in this country. Today I was on a Webcast put on by the U.S. Census Bureau. It dealt with “Poverty, Income, and Health Insurance” in the United States. The Census Bureau never ceases to amaze me with the data that they present. I, of course, would have no idea if they were pulling the wool over my eyes, but it looks good to me.

The statistics that they presented were staggering. The median household income in the United States in 2004 was a $44,400/year. Does anyone else think that is way too little to be caring for a family with, even in Wichita, let alone New York City or Los Angeles? 12.7% of the people in the United States lived in poverty in 2004. That amounts to approximately 37 million people, up only very modestly from 2003. Why is that we hear nothing but how well our economy is doing and yet over a million more people are “officially” poor from one year to the next? Does someone smell rotting fish?

37 million people exist in this country in poverty, and I would consider our measure of poverty far too laissez-faire. 37 million people is approximately the population of Argentina. Does anyone think that a country that has split the human genome, harnessed the atom and “successfully” prevented inflation for nearly twenty years, think that it is atrocious that 37 million people live in poverty in this country. And that the true number of people struggling not only month to month, or week to week, but day to day is probably far higher.

The saddest statistic is that the percentage of children in poverty is higher than the national average (17.8%). In this Webcast it was presented that 11.2% of children do not have health insurance. 18.9% of children living in poverty have no health insurance in spite of the fact that programs like Medicaid and State Childrens Health Insurance Plans (SCHIPs) are designed to cover the poor. I cannot abide people denied health coverage, I find it especially shameful when children are denied.

Poverty is a natural by-product of the economic system that we have selected for ourselves. I do not mean capitalism, you neo-con slugs! I mean a self-serving, self-centered and self-interested variety of capitalism. Until several years ago ethics classes were not part of standard business school curricula. It took the Enron and WorldCom scandals to get those classes taught.

As for corporate social responsibility, that has absolutely not caught on in this country. There is no incentive to help working people struggling to make a bit more money. Paying people a fair wage is antithetical to our profit-driven business model. I am, of course, laying down vast generalizations. Not all business owners are awful, and many truly cannot afford to pay more, particularly small business owners. But why does it always seem to fall on the little guy; the mother working multiple jobs, the father who has taken a menial laborers job because a plant was moved overseas to make a company more profitable? I don’t see a lot of out of work CEOs or executive salaries lagging?

A raise in the minimum wage or other labor friendly regulations are slammed as typical liberal, anti-business shenanigans. John Kenneth Galbraith said it best in a speech in 1998: "Who is hurt, then, by a rise in the minimum wage? I'm enough of an economist to believe that people are rational, and that therefore workers are rational when they favor a rise in minimum wages, and that certain employers are rational enough when they oppose it. Who are they? The most predatory, the most abusive, the least desirable employers in our economic system, those who thrive on low-wage shops and who use the lever of low wages to drive other businesses to the wall. If a rise in the minimum wage hurts such businesses and helps some others, in my view so much the better." We need to become better at argue that these are not anti-business but pro-employee.

Not all American businesses have taken this approach towards labor costs. If one looks historically, Henry Ford, generally considered a vicious competitor and typical capitalist businessman, the founder of the Ford Motor Company and father of assembly line manufacturing said; "There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." The $5-a-day minimum-wage scheme he voluntarily implemented in 1914, the first in the nation, came at a time when the average wage in the auto industry was $2.34 for a 9-hr. shift.

Ford not only doubled that, he also shaved an hour off the workday. This all happened before the government mandated a minimum wage. Ford, for all his personal flaws, was model of corporate social responsibility. But instead of being praised Ford was scorned by the business world. The Wall Street Journal called his actions "an Economic Crime". Henry Ford got the last laugh. The critics were shortsighted and unable to see that in lowering his "costs per car", the higher wages didn't matter — except for making it possible for more people, including his employees, to buy his cars.

Henry Ford understood a theory that has come to be known as the Labor Theory of Value. That is that paying employees a livable wage will improve morale, it will increase productivity, it will inspire "pride of ownership" in employees. After all, as John Locke pointed out, in the workplace all a worker owns is his labor.

So, how and when does it all change? It isn’t easy (it never is, is it?). People must make a conscious decision to take a stand against companies that do not practice corporate social responsible behavior. We need to not support sweatshop businesses. We need to take a stand against predatory businesses that drive down costs at the expense of worker salary and benefits. (Wal-Mart, I’m looking at YOU!) We need to decide that the lowest possible cost to us isn’t necessarily the best deal. Ironic isn’t it that so many poor people shop at Wal-Mart and yet it is Wal-Mart style businesses that are driving the cost-cutting craze that prevents poor people from getting a leg up.

It isn’t just Wal-Mart, it isn’t just their business practice of strangling suppliers to cut costs, but they are a huge part of the problem. Identify companies in your community who treat their employees well, who provide them with good benefits and a fair wage. Support those businesses and urge your friends to do so too. You might just be the mouse that roared.

The Plame Game...

In the on-going saga of the White House leak of the identity of Valerie Plame, there is really no new information to present. But this week the Los Angeles Times printed an excellent summary of the events that have transpired to date. It goes through all the events in the order they transpired and give a bit of an assessment of them. I think the best point that this article makes time and time again is that answers are severely lacking in this incident.

The administration made a huge mistake, intentional or not, in leaking the identity of Ambassador Joe Wilson’s wife to the press. The administration made even more colossal mistakes in assessing the evidence against Iraq when trying to justify the war. And yet, we aren’t having a debate about why we went to war. We are having a debate about the legality of divulging the name of a covert operative.

Where the hell are our priorities? I am quite fully aware that the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity was an incredible lapse of judgment by this administration, possibly a criminal one. But it is the type of hardball tactics that are to be expected when doing political battle with a Rottweiler like Karl Rove. But in the mix, we have allowed the administration to succeed in its mission. That mission, as undertaken by Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and a number of other buffoons in the Bush administration, was to distract the American people’s attention away from the reality that we found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Let me repeat that for all you Republican numb skulls. We found NO Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

Oh Mr. Blogger, why is that so significant? We went into Iraq to deliver democracy and liberty to the Iraqi people. And clearly, they were a haven for terrorists. Hogwash! Do not forget the fact that our sole and entire rationale for invading the sovereign nation of Iraq was because we believed that Saddam Hussein was in violation of a gaggle of United Nations Security Council resolutions dealing with Weapons of Mass Destruction. We were particularly fearful that he might be a weak link in our efforts to prevent the proliferation of these weapons to some of the most undesirable hands.

Make no mistake about it, Saddam Hussein is a pig. In fact, that is an insult to pigs. He is a disgusting megalomaniac, but that in and of itself is simply not sufficient justification for violating the sovereignty of an independent nation. Unfortunately our entire legitimate rationale rested on the fact that this man and his Bathist buddies were in violation of rules set up as a result of the Gulf War. They were the terms of his surrender in 1991. We were convinced that this guy was pulling a fast on the weapons inspectors placed in Iraq by the UN. We were so convinced that we went around the UN and invaded anyways. In so doing we destroyed the goodwill of the international community that came about as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11^th.

The Plame Game goes on, but don’t be distracted. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, there was no tie between Saddam Hussein’s Bathists and Al Qaeda, and if our intention was to build a stable democracy in Iraq, I think we should quit while we’re behind and sinking. Our administration lied to us, they distracted us and stalled to get their puppet re-elected, and now they have us bogged down in this Karl Rove leak investigation. Who cares! Karl Rove is a big fat (and I mean rotund) ZERO. The people we need to investigate are Vice President Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush and then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. These are the people who perpetrated the alleged fraud against the American people and against the world as a whole.

Don’t be distracted.

Lance vs. the Frogs

This week events unfolded in France that have again called into question the legitimacy of Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France victories. It took me several days to formulate an opinion on the matter. But fear not dear readers, your opinionated blogger never fails to develop an opinion on any number of issues.

The way I see it, the French are extremely bitter about the fact that a Yankee has come to their back yards for over a half decade and spanked their Bordeaux drinkin’ derrières. The have a national psychosis over hating all things American that they cannot beat. Lance Armstrong should save his breath. He describes his relationship with the French as being of the love/hate variety. I suppose that is true, if by love/hate he means that the French love to hate him. It has nothing to do with his cycling ability. The Frogs certainly didn’t hate Miguel Indurain, a Spaniard, when he won five straight Tours in the 1990s.

Indeed, the French were eventually going to find a way to nail Lance, and in the end the French can go on looking down their noses at all things American. In the absence of “evidence” the French had to grudgingly respect the feat that Armstrong had achieved. Certainly none of their riders have ever been able to achieve such success in their race.

Just as the French have dismissed Lance Armstrong based on the article published in L’Equipe, Americans will completely write off this as an anti-American witch hunt. Because like the French, Americans have a national psychosis about Armstrong also. He is our boy, our king, our champion. He is the conquering hero. He overcame a fatal diagnosis of cancer and went on to not only to return to form in the sport of cycling, but indeed be even better. We refuse to see anything that might disturb this illusory image of Mighty Lance.

So, no, dear anonymous poster, we will not stop wearing the LiveStrong bracelets. We will especially not be persuaded on evidence presented by the liberal French media. Whether Armstrong actual dopes or not is really immaterial. It is my suspicion that he probably did. I would imagine that anyone that finishes in the top 50 in the Tour dopes in one way or another. Even if he does, it does not diminish his accomplishment in my eyes. He was simply the champion in an era of “cheaters”. The Tour is as much about tactics and teamwork, and Lance Armstrong certainly assembled the best team in the history of the Tour and they have executed their tactics better than anyone else ever has.

The difference between an “icon” and an “expert”

Icon:
Patt Morrison, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times wrote an excellent column this week. I believe it fits in quite nicely with the theme that I have been writing about over the last several weeks about special celebrity status and accountability of experts vs. icons. Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier that died in Iraq, is an icon. Though she has been treated as a celebrity, she isn’t. Sheehan is a grieving mother with a very understandable gripe with the President of the United States. If you’re an anti-war protester and you’re turning to this woman for guidance and leadership you’re in need of some serious medication and counseling. This is not a woman who should lead the anti-war movement; she isn’t nearly qualified for that. But she is a powerful image that evokes sympathy and outrage. Both of those emotions should be levied in this effort.

This woman is obviously grief stricken. And those on the right, with their kids safely tucked away at some expensive private university, should not judge this person until they have walked a mile in her shoes. Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, I don’t see many medals on your lapels. It seems that the most gung-ho are those that have never fought a battle in their lives. They should not rail that Sheehan is dishonoring her son’s memory. How would they know? Even if Casey Sheehan was a proud soldier who believed in his mission to the core of his being, his mother’s protests are totally appropriate. Cindy Sheehan is not trying to honor or dishonor his life; she is trying to protest the circumstances of his death and, in her way, make sure that no more mothers ever feel the way that she does.

I am glad that Sheehan has returned to Texas. The President will have to learn that this issue is NOT going to go away. The nation is not as easily fooled by the lame rhetoric that he throws around. He sounds like a tired old rock star belting out the same putrid clichés over and over again. Someone buy Dubya some leather pants and put him on stage with the Rolling Stones (sorry Mick). The administration needs to realize that the people who oppose the Iraq War are not an insignificant band of pitiful hippies. Not everyone is so easily reduced to stereotypes. Cindy Sheehan and her friends are the tip of the iceberg. The anti-war movement has been emboldened by this icon of anguish.

“Expert”
Likewise, when someone who already has attained celebrity, when they have a pulpit and captive audience from which to espouse an ideology which is not only morally reprehensible but also illegal. When this person is an influential member of a constituency which is closely linked to the President of the United States, is a member of the President’s party, and actively raised money to re-elect the President, I do not believe that his words should be cast aside so lightly. I do not believe that the Reverend Patrick Robertson should be written off as a private citizen; he isn’t. He is a self-proclaimed expert on just about everything.

Pat Robertson is not only the anti-Christian; he is also the most hateful hobgoblin to ever walk the face of this Earth. Like most neo-conservatives he claims to be a devout man, but has not a shred of Christian ethic in him. Neo-cons worship at the altar of American hegemony. They believe to the core of their soul that America is “god’s country” (sorry Bono) and that as such we should be able to impose our beliefs on any banana republic that we want.

The banana republic of the moment is Venezuela. Pat Robertson openly advocated the assassination of President Hugo Chavez. The specifics of his speech are not important because everything he said was rendered total rubbish when he proclaimed that the United States could save itself a ton of money if it just offed Chavez, a critic of U.S. foreign policy.

It seems that Robertson believes that El Presidente is a threat to the United States. He is, apparently, in league with (hold your breath) Fidel Castro. Can we find more ways to lose focus on the war on terror? First we bumble and stumble our way out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. Now we’re going to go all McCarthy on ‘em and take on the commies? Good grief! Are we really back to this again? I thought we were all done with the communists. Have we not already proven that free market societies are far superior to top-down autocracies? If we’re going to take on the communists again, why Cuba, why Chavez? Well, the Chavez part is simple, oil. Venezuela is the world’s fifth most oil-rich nation. Makes you wonder, do we ever get involved in humanitarian missions in countries that don’t have vast reserves of oil.

Everyone in the Bush administration seems to have received and read the memo because they are all reciting the same party line about Robertson being an individual citizen and being allowed to say anything he wants. They go on to say that they don’t assassinate foreign leaders in complying with an executive order handed down by President Gerald Ford. Well, it is good that they made their stance abundantly clear. I just have one tiny little beef. Robertson is an individual citizen? I don’t think so. This man is extremely influential among religious conservatives. President Chavez is coming to the United States next month for a United Nations General Assembly meeting and this “Christian” fundamentalist has issued a fatwah against him. Make no mistake, what Pat Robertson did in making this statement was exactly akin to what Osama bin Laden does. He has urged his followers to take matters into their own hands. Also, let’s be clear about one more thing, Pat Robertson knew exactly what he was doing.

We can fight a war on terror. We can be righteous and on the side of all that is good and right with the world, but not while trolls like Robertson make outrageous statements and his friends in government don’t take him to task for them. Is this war worth winning if we sink as low as our enemies? I know the position advocated by Robertson is not the policy of our federal government, but President Bush needs to publicly scold his ally in the clearest possible terms, not just distance himself from the comments. He needs to stand up and say that Robertson’s comments were foolish and the ramblings of an ignorant ideology of evil. Would he say any less about bin Laden?

As for you in the press, get with the program. Cindy Sheehan is an individual citizen expressing her opinion. Don’t grill her for insights into strategic foreign policy information. Pat Robertson on the other hand is an “expert” on everything. Fry him up with your morning bacon! Take him to task for what he says and how he says it. His influence has merits among a deranged constituency in this country. It is time to hold him accountable for this. Sure, he can say whatever he wants, but he should be challenged on it. Do your job Tucker Carlson, you twerp!

Osama Yo Mama! How you been?

It has generally been my modus operandi to give my perspective on events that are actively being covered in the press. Issues that, for good or for bad, are getting a lot of coverage. I try to discuss both the topic and the quality of the coverage. My idea for today is to write something a bit different, and cover something that is not getting nearly enough press and talk about why it is being overlooked.

Osama bin Laden! Anyone remember this half man, half pig (oh yeah, that was a direct stab at his fanatical style of Islam, baby!)? So, how do I know that Osama has all but disappeared from the press? Well, aside from the fact that I am a famous know-it-all, I decided to do a word search on Yahoo! News. I searched under the term “Osama bin Laden”. I came up with an incredible 19 news articles. I find this to be outrageous considering that Yahoo! News regularly includes articles from the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, in addition to every major newspaper in the United States and a good number of fairly random news sources. So how does this rate as compared with other celebrity evil-doers? Well, Saddam Hussein rates 93 articles and “Karl Rove” rates a measly 6 articles. (but this is another outrageous topic for another day). Meanwhile, Michael Jackson, public enemy number one that he is, rates 2,816 news articles and “Carrot Top” the most likely of all terrorist suspects (if for no other then his comedy routine could be argued to be torture under the Geneva Convention) rates 71 articles.

So, how can it be that Iraq is the frontline in the war on terror and yet Osama bin Laden is all but forgotten? At what point did we decide to shift our focus from the war on Al Qaeda to Iraq, which has never had any relationship whatsoever with the terrorist super group? It is my belief that this is clearly a result of the capable skills of Paul Wolfowitz, and his ability to shift the focus of world attention and unity to the non-issue of Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz worked in the first Bush administration during the Gulf War. He and his neo-conservative compatriots had eagerly lobbied then President H.W. Bush to take down Saddam Hussein. The neo-con doctrine of pre-emption, they claimed, gave the U.S. the right to impose democracy on the world and use force if necessary to achieve that end. Basically, carry a big stick and use it at our sole discretion. I don’t know what neighborhood you grew up in, but where I come from, we call that a bully. So, we stopped short of taking down Al Qaeda’s leaders and turned our target sights on Iraq, a place that was run by a sociopath with a napoleon complex, but was no harbor for terrorist.

Alas, that was Iraq, the 2003 model. Iraq the 2005 model is the frontline of the war on terror. Like the jealous lover who is convinced that his partner is up to no good and the jealousy in turn drives the lover into the arms of another. The terror problems in Iraq are entirely our own making. We fucked it up (sorry mom). We saw it coming, any idiot could have predicted what was coming. Anyone who has paid attention to the Middle East during the last 40 years could have predicted that insurgents would flood from far and wide into Iraq to fight what they perceive as the next in a long series of Crusades. To Muslims this battle is being fought on two fronts, in Palestine by the Israelis and in the wider region by the United States. They don’t separate these two, they see no distinction, nor should they.

The administration sold us this cockamamie story which was not supported by any evidence except for the kind of intelligence that really doesn’t make you feel very good inside. It is the kind of evidence you wouldn’t place much faith in when betting the kids’ college fund at the sports book at Caesar’s Palace. So why on Earth would you send American’s to die in Iraq? I know this has all been said many times, but I wonder how we could take our eyes off the ball just as it was crossing the plate. We were in Afghanistan, we had world opinion on our side, the Taliban were scrambling into the mountains like antelope fleeing a Lion, and Osama bin Laden was on the run. Some evidence supports the case that we had Al Qaeda’s top leadership surrounded at Tora Bora and yet we failed to catch him.

Remember Osama bin Laden! Don’t lose focus on him. I don’t mean Osama the swine, I mean Osama the movement, the terror movement, Osama the poster child in fanatical eyes who resists the imperial crusaders. This is the war on terror, not the side show that is going on in Iraq.