Bring It On

False Hope - False Security.

Like many people in the country tonight, I sit here saddened by the news that 12 of the 13 miners trapped underground in West Virginia died tragically waiting for the rescuers to literally move heaven and earth to reach them. My family is from that area. My grandfathers both worked mines like that when they were young. One suffered chronic illness as a result of those years underground.

I was hoping for a miracle to happen, a miracle like we saw in back in July of 2002. That was when 9 miners were rescued after three days from the Quecreek mine in Pennsylvania. The accidents were too dissimilar, the conditions too unalike to offer much hope, and in the end we should be thankful that anyone at all survived.

The Quecreek rescue couldn't’t have happened at a better time for this country. Less than a year after 9/11, we were a country still grieving over the loss of thousands. The triumphant pictures of people being pulled from certain doom did more to lift the mood in America than I thought possible. It wasn’t just a “feel good story” - it was a cause for national celebration. Suddenly, there was hope again. Hope for, security, hope for safety.

It was that hope we transferred to President Bush to lead us to safety. We wanted to be saved from harm. We wanted a hero to come along and make the world sane again. We wanted that security so much that we were willing to look the other way when a few rules were bent, a few facts stretched. We needed to feel protected to such an extent that we bought into aluminum tubes and yellow cake without a second thought.

Maybe that’s why I find it such eerie symmetry that this accident occurred when it did. If the first accident came at a time when people needed hope, the second comes at a time when people are realizing that our President isn’t a cowboy, but a crook. Bending the rules became breaking the law. Making us safer meant 2182 U.S. soldiers dead in a war based on those “stretched facts.”

Every day seems to lead to some new revelation of government corruption or malfeasance. Tom DeLay, Duke Cunnigham (whose admission of guilt may make him look honorable by the time this is over), and the bloodbath that will come from Jack Abrahmof’s testimony are signs that even during a time of “war” certain people will stop at nothing to pursue personal power and gain. There is no sacrifice small enough for them to make, and none too big enough for us. Instead of leading us, they are robbing us. They sit in contemptuous defiance of their oath.

And then their is the President. A man who seems to embody this contempt with every action.

The revelation that the President authorized domestic spying in clear violation of the law was shocking, but hardly surprising. The rational that he could not follow the law because of time constraints was hollow and illogical (you can seek a warrant 72 hours after the tap). The legal justification for the act (his powers as Commander in Chief) is Nixononian politics at it’s best. The statement that he only used it to listen to terror suspects seems highly questionable. Why then is NBC investigating whether the White House spied on reporter Christiane Amanpour?  (hat tip to Americablog)

To make matters worse, now he is trying to bypass the new torture ban law that he fought tooth and nail to sink. Even as he signed the bill, a bill whose sole purpose is to eliminate any loopholes for torturing prisoners, the President issued a ‘’signing statement” declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, according to the White House and other legal specialists.

I’m not sure why he thinks he can disregard the Legislature's will. It’s as if he doesn’t understand the concept of Checks and Balances. It is not for him to say that he is only going to follow the laws that he likes, when he likes and IF he likes. If the laws need changing, there is a mechanism for that, one that does not allow for “executive activism.” Even in our irrational desire for Safety Now, very few people of either political stripe would have been willing to do away with the basic underpinning of our democracy.

And yet, that is exactly what is happening now. Maybe he is power hungry, but more likely Mr. Bush is driven by the same need to make America safe that we all feel. He want’s to make us safe at all costs, even when the price isn’t his to decide. His Oath of Office is to defend the Constitution, and in that way he has failed the American public more than other.

Life teaches us that we can never be totally safe. Today taught us that no matter how heroic, good people suffer bad fates sometimes. As a nation we must do all we can within the law to protect ourselves as best we can. However, if we continue to allow the President to abuse his authority authority with impunity, we risk more than American lives, we risk America herself.

Our Custom Concern...

The hangover has not yet completely evaporated, but I gotta head to work in the morning. Not only is 2005 over, but my minuscule company sanctioned vacation has come to a close, a, bitter-sweet, close. A vacation filled with booze, family, poker and a 6-year anniversary, a vacation that doesn’t come at a better time for self and political reflection.

I’ve got some questions and some youthful optimism for this New Year, a year that is still in its infantile state, a year that is beckoning for change.

It’s the start of something anew, a new start to a new year. It’s another chance for America to redeem herself from her wanton disregard for history and for humanity.

As my head still pounds with the excess of another New Years Eve that not even a New Years Day can cure, I sit and think of the possibilities that lay ahead, I can see the glimmer of hope that is on the horizon, only but a mere 11 months away.

2006 isn’t just the year that the Democrats take back both congress and our national pride, may it be the year that we as a nation look back on where we have come from, and look forward to where we are going. It can be the year that we apologize not only to ourselves but to the world at large. We not only have the chance to  apologize for the actions of this renegade administration, but we can hold them accountable.

Victory in congress means victory for the truth.

We are sitting on the turn, got all of our chips on the table and the American Right has made the call, now with the cards showing we wait for the river. We wait to see if we can make it, we wait for justice.

Here is wishing all of you a blessed new year. And here is wishing our Democratic leaders the courage and willingness to stand up for what is right.

God knows they are going to need it.

Custom Concern from Modest Mouse: (listen to the first 30 seconds if you have iTunes)

Their custom concern for the people
Build up the monuments and steeples
To wear out our eyes
I get up just about noon
My head sends a message for me
to reach for my shoes then walk
Gotta go to work, gotta go to work, gotta get a job
Goes through the parking lot fields
Doesn't see no signs that they will yield
And then thought, this'll never end
This'll never end, this'll never stop
Message read on the bathroom wall
Says, "I don't feel at all like I fall."
And we're losing all touch, losing all touch
Building a desert

2005: What A Year

Happy New Year.  And now, one more (yet another one) of those end-of-the-year articles.

Terry Schiavo.  Justice Sunday.  Nuclear Option.  Social Security Privatization.  Downing Street Memos.  Cindy Sheehan.  John Murtha.  John Roberts.  Harriet Miers.  Samuel Alito.  Scooter Libby.  Jack Abramoff.  Mean Jean Schmidt.  Katrina/FEMA/Browniegate.  Tookie Williams.  Pope Benedict XVI.  War on Christmas.  Rendition.

Whew!  What a year.  This time last year, those household names and phrases would’ve been meaningless.  And don’t forget some of 2005’s most (in)famous quotes.  Katrinagate was a gold mine:

“I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.”  “Brownie you’re doing a heckuva job.”  “So many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.”

Lesser known but maybe the most infamous:  Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., telling lobbyists “We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans.  We couldn’t do it, but God did.”

Besides FEMAgate, 2005 was full of those open-mouth-insert-foot moments:

“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.”

“This is not somebody in a persistent vegetative state.”

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God. You just rejected him from your city.”

“I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”

This time last year, George W. Bush was basking in his re-election “mandate” and bragging about all his political capital.  He was all set to march right in and privatize Social Security, turn the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge into a giant oil field, and make the Patriot Act bigger and better (and written in stone).

OOPS.

Now, this time next year what will we be looking back at?  Will Bush’s poll ratings continue to sink?  Will Republican politicians continue avoiding him for the sake of their own careers?  Will the newly-Democratic House of Representatives begin impeachment proceedings?

Or will Karl Rove bounce back from his legal troubles and come up with a whole slew of new dirty tricks?  Will Rove and his Swiftboat Chickenhawks succeed in sliming all critics of the administration and reviving Bush’s popularity?  Will the Hitler Youth Patriot Act expire in February ‘06, or will it be made permanent and bigger and better than ever?

Maybe Rove will invent another phony gay-marriage type issue that will get millions more Americans to vote Republican.

Or maybe that Avian Flu pandemic will actually happen and all the above questions will be moot.

If  we’re living in “interesting times,” then 2006 oughtta be fascinating.

cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country

If You Read, the Terrorists Win

From the mind of a Psychotic Patriot here is your Friday guest post.

I've come to realize something about America recently, and it's disturbing not just because it's out of the mainstream media, but because it by definition is caused by the mainstream media. I offer this dark scenario: If you read, the terrorists win. What I mean by this is that fewer and fewer people read, for any reason, and fewer CAN read, for any reason. So you have a continuous dumbing-down of the populace, and an equally continuous rise in wingnuttery and incredibly simplistic concepts offered as fact. Take the "ID" movement, please.

So the more I read, the more I disbelieve Bush and his minions. Wait. I didn't believe him before he became the resident. Anyway. The more I read the more I refuse to accept the glowing bullshit frothing from Iraq. Insert anything intellectual, or GASP! (Liberal) after "The more I read." So, in the parlance of conservative evangelical mindlessness: if I don't unquestioningly devour the smallest sound-bites of Hannitian and Limbaughistic logic, leaving any curiosity at the curb, I'm Osama's butt-buddy. It's just that simple.

Now I'm talking about what is called "Critical Literacy." Not skimming the newspaper headlines, not squinting to see the scroll at the bottom of Fox News, but the kind of critical reading done in books, as well as thoughtful reading in any format done in pursuit of a serious intellectual or educational premise. If you've gotten this far, you know what I mean. The kind of reading which examines an issue deeply, and dredges up information to add to an informed mind, to expand said mind, to enhance it, or, perchance, to throw the issue the fuck out.

But that's not what's happening.

Reading scores have been dropping like a stone for fifty years, and this Washington Post article helps us see where we are now:

Literacy experts and educators say they are stunned by the results of a recent adult literacy assessment, which shows that the reading proficiency of college graduates has declined in the past decade, with no obvious explanation.

"It's appalling -- it's really astounding," said Michael Gorman, president of the American Library Association and a librarian at California State University at Fresno. "Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it. That's not saying much for the remainder."

[...]

Experts could not definitively explain the drop.

"The declining impact of education on our adult population was the biggest surprise for us, and we just don't have a good explanation," said Mark S. Schneider, commissioner of education statistics. "It may be that institutions have not yet figured out how to teach a whole generation of students who learned to read on the computer and who watch more TV. It's a different kind of literacy."

Different kind of literacy? Pardon me while I laugh until my intestines are hanging from my teeth. This line sounds exactly like a Bush talking point. The two activities which make up the bulk of Internet traffic are porn and music file-sharing, so we can shit-can that one right away, unless we're including "... Betsy likes a big dick in her love life, and shows you right where to put it in this HOT HOT HOT video clip... " in Critical Reading skills.

They do not NEED to read. Tiny bits of information are text-messaged to them, deliberately misspelled (which they would never notice, apparently), along with equally - yet not deliberately - misspelled e-mails. The average attention span is measured in micro-seconds these days, so if the concept can be splashed across a video screen, with tattoos and nipple-rings aimed at what to buy, the message gets through without any reading necessary.

So how does the whole nation fare in reading skills? I will extract some numbers from the National Center For Educational Statistics: 93,000,000 Americans are at or below the minimum reading skill level. Don't make me look at which states.

Back in the 1940's we had a 96% literacy rate in those volunteering for military service.

WWII was over in 1945. Six years later another war began in Korea. Several million men were tested for military service but this time 600,000 were rejected. Literacy in the draft pool had dropped to 81 percent, even though all that was needed to classify a soldier as literate was fourth- grade reading proficiency. In the few short years from the beginning of WWII to Korea, a terrifying problem of adult illiteracy had appeared. The Korean War group received most of its schooling in the 1940s, and it had more years in school with more professionally trained personnel and more scientifically selected textbooks than the WWII men, yet it could not read, write, count, speak, or think as well as the earlier, less-schooled contingent.

So I offer this continuing concept, one which I extract from the historical information: The more television one watches, the less one reads, and the more one believes idiotic rantings by wingnutty puffballs.

I have a television, but it's connected to a DVD player, not a cable. I listen to Internet Radio or iTunes for fun or information. I read a huge variety of web information across the entire political spectrum. I detest commercials. If I want topical video clips, I go to Crooks & Liars.

I sit at the edge of another vast wasteland; not the television itself, but the growing vacuum between the ears of America, and sadly, it's growing in one direction only.

From The First to The Fourth Amendments; The Constitution Rules

I thought I would continue The Christmas Wars.  No, if I never hear about any holiday, secular or not, again I will be very happy.  And I have banned certain words from my vocabula

I want to briefly talk about Judge Jones and the Intelligent Design decison.  No, I don't.  I want to gloat over it.  Why?  Several months back I wrote a post that used very similiar reasoning to Judge Jones's.

Why when we at Bring it on! have been saying this since we began am I bringing this up now?  Because many radical Christian Rightists still don't get it.  It's simple; it's the Amendment that guarantees the most basic of rights, the right to practice or not practice a religion, and never have to worry that a state religion will be formed, and also and equal, guarantees freedom of speech.

That's the first time I have ever quoted myself.  I explained how faith is untestable.  No matter how much you want to believe that something bigger than us created the universe, nobody is able to test faith.

It's easy to test one type of faith: Faith in ones ability to do something.  I have faith that I will cross the street without being killed.  If I'm not, I have prove my hypothesis.  But the type of faith that proponents of Intelligent Design believe in is simply not testable.

Here's Judge Jones;

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

If you haven't read Judge Jones decision; I have linked it.  Okay I have gloated enough.

                                                   *************************************

I found an article in Foxnews.com that blew me away.  Yes, really. Fox or as we like to call it here Faux News.   It's by Martin Frost, former Democratic Congressman from Dallas/Fort Worth  He was in Congress for 26 years, and isn't faux anything.

Recently I have been trying to figure out who President Bush reminded me of.

Was it Richard Nixon with his willingness to break the law to hold onto the presidency? Was it FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who bugged Martin Luther King Jr. and anyone he considered to be a political enemy?

And then it struck me. President Bush most closely resembles King George III of England. You remember him -- he’s the guy whose high-handed rule led to the American Revolution.

Frost reread The Constitution; he's a lawyer, was a Fellow at the Institute of Politics, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and was a Congressman for a long time.  When he talks about the Fourth Amendment I will listen:

Now the "new King George" would have us believe one of three things: (1) the president’s powers as commander-in-chief supersede the fourth amendment during the war on terror (2) the resolution adopted by Congress shortly after the 9/11 attack can be read to give the president the authority to conduct domestic wiretaps against American citizens without going to court to seek a warrant and (3) modern technology is such that the founding fathers could never have anticipated the need to conduct wiretaps without a warrant.

Let's see Frost debase these arguments:

First, it takes a very broad reading of the commander-in-chief clause to justify any conduct as superseding the constitution. President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the U.S. Civil War, an action that was very controversial at the time; it is hard to equate the ongoing war on terror with the American Civil War, which threatened the very existence of the Republic.

Second, I was a member of Congress when we passed the resolution giving the president the authority to use all force necessary against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Congress clearly meant this as authorization to go into Afghanistan and find Usama bin Laden. No one ever thought this authorized our government to wiretap American citizens in our own country without court approval.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle wrote an op-ed piece in the Dec. 23rd Washington Post detailing how the Bush administration proposed last minute language to the 9/11 resolution which would have given the president the power to engage in domestic spying without a search warrant, and that this language was specifically rejected by the bills’ authors.

And third, the modern technology argument is an interesting one but is not very persuasive. Congress in 1978 passed legislation permitting spying inside the United States under certain circumstances. That law created a special court that can respond within hours to a request for search warrants. And the law also contained an exception, permitting the Attorney General to authorize wiretaps in an emergency situation and then seek a warrant within 72 hours.

Frost then asks if Bush...  Oh, he says it so well, and I never want to be accused of mangling words.

Does he simply want dictatorial powers? Does he so mistrust the court system (even a secret one specifically set up to make it easier to wiretap people inside the United States) that he doesn’t want any of the traditional checks on the power of the executive to violate basic civil liberties? Does he just want a political issue that makes him look tough and opponents (Democrats and some Republicans) look weak?

This is our country and this is our Constitution. Even if for some reason you like Bush, he has seriously abused the powers of the presidency.  Don't tell me that I'm convicting him without a trial.  What has Bush been doing?  Here's the one question that you should ask yourself:

"The Bush administration simply cannot answer this one question - if time was of the essence, why didn't they conduct the searches and get the warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive warrants."

Then join us, Bulldog, and the entire Impeach Bush Blog Coalition in taking these steps:

2. Send an email to all of these media folks and ask them "The Question."

3. Sign Senator Boxer's petition .

4. Contact your senator.

5. Contact your congressman.

6. Contact Congressman Pete Hoekstra too.

7. File a Freedom of Information Act request HERE.

8. Sign John Conyers' petition to censure and investigate impeachment.

9. Join the guerilla marketing campaign .

10. Make a donation to ImpeachPAC.

11. Join the Impeach Bush Coalition.


(Thanks to Redneck Mother for inspiring the list.)

Please read the articles in The Impeach Bush Coalition.  More people and newspapers than you would imagine are joining us.  Join with everybody at BIO, in calling for an impeachment hearing.  It's the only way that we're going to ever learn anything unless Bush muzzles the prosecuter, and that's a possiblity that our Congress, and judical system won't allow.  Why?  We have an incredible Constitution and Bill of Rights. Nobody will allow that to be mocked.

We already know that Fitzgerald is incredible; he's the perfect antitode to Ken Starr and that mockery of an impeachment hearing..  Maybe lying about sex is a minor crime; but everything Bush has been doing is a high crime and misdemenor.

Let me end by saying that the only way 2006 can be a great year is by getting rid of Bush and all the Bushettes.

Personally I would like to thank everybody at BIO! for being so great; and Bulldog for beginning the Impeach Bush Coalition.

Let the lost children of New Orleans be found; New Orleans to be rebuilt quickly, and bring the troops home now, please.  We don't belong in Iraq; it's the only way we can ensure their safety.

Peace in 2006.

William Kristol is a Skinny, Little Idiot.

I've made the mistake of reading conservative columns before, but the William Kristol piece I read from the January 2 Weekly Standard takes the cake – and lets you eat it. It seems Mr. Kristol is concerning himself with a paranoia he detects in the line of critical questioning from his fellow Americans regarding the recent NSA/FISA-bypassing "snooping" controversy. So what is it, Mr. Kristol? Trust the government or distrust the government? And which government do we trust? And which branch? I assume you have a conservative-approved list.

He leads his piece-of-work off with this: "No reasonable American, no decent human being, wants to send up a white flag in the war on terror." In the world of baiting-and-switching that is the totality of right wing rhetoric, this bait is a ton of chum in shark infested waters. Any number of issues may be framed this way by anyone who feels the urge to do so ("No reasonable American, no decent human being, wants to send up a white flag in the war on child abuse." or, "No reasonable American, no decent human being, wants to send up a white flag in the war on cannibalism"). Bill O'Reilly patented this baiting method some years ago and graciously shares it with Right-Wing pundits and pols.

With the bait set, Mr. Kristol then reminds us that any and all criticism of this republican excuse for a president is completely without merit and irrational. It's an old line. He says, "...leading spokesmen for American liberalism-hostile beyond reason to the Bush administration, and ready to believe the worst about American public servants-seem to have concluded that the terror threat is mostly imaginary." Not only is he suggesting that the only critique of this unilateral, executive-branch snooping is from the far Left (which is a lie), but his Harvard-readied mind also manages to slip in another typically hypocritical jab at the Left: he insinuates that we liberals also have some irrational, universal distrust of our "public servants," even though the Right is notoriously disdainful of most public service and incessantly criticizes the Left for relying on too much on - guess what! - Public Servants! (duh) After all is said here, the only thing "public" about what these "servants" did was that they are apparently so inept, like the rest of this "administration," they got caught. Finally, he believes that the Left believes that terrorism is a conspiratorial, Right-Wing myth. Well, Mr. Kristol, we here in the liberal bastion of the New York Metropolitan Area know full well that terrorism is real, so fear not for our grasp on reality.

The gist of Mr. Kristol's piece, and in fact the gist of that whole Spectator issue, is that FISA was somehow "broken" and so therefore the administration was justified to bypass the FISA Court, almost just as they have bypassed the Judiciary with the Patriot Act, but without legal reconciliation of any kind. Though only 5 of the 19,000 surveillance requests before the FISC were rejected in the known past, Mr. Kristol would have us believe that somehow the FISC impeded investigations of terrorism. His logic? The broad, wide-net, sweeping surveillance of modern, multimedia communications rendered the FISA process obsolete. Would the FISC have had to okay the surveillance of every single individual or organization that may be caught in the net? Would new law be required for such a thing? He only answers the first question, and that's a resounding no.

What he doesn't wonder is whether the FISC, or something like it, could have okayed specific mediums searched, and algorithms utilized, in the sweeps, thereby pre-approving the surveillance of individuals by okaying the search for certain types of data and communications. If the answer is that question is "no," and there was no other course through the Judiciary, then Bush was without recourse but to request legislation. Why didn't he? Could it be that what the administration looking at they didn't want the FISC, congress, judiciary, and the public to know? If it turns out they were hunting peaceful American activists, as done in the past, I'm sure Mr. Kristol and his ilk will find a way to justify that as well.

Mr. Kristol then asks this: "So we are really to believe that President Bush just sat around after 9/11 thinking, "How can I aggrandize my powers?" Or that Gen. Hayden-and his hundreds of nonpolitical subordinates-cheerfully agreed to an obviously crazy, bizarre, and unnecessary project of "domestic spying"?"

Personally, I don't think President Bush thinks about all that much, but, once again, Mr. Kristol's hypocrisy rears it's little, skinny head – I thought conservatives believed that power inevitably corrupts, that power begets want for more power? What happened? Does this only apply to "liberals?" I guess so.

Secondly, to say that military people are by definition "apolitical" seems so incredibly stupid, I don't even know what to ask (to try to understand) except: are all people not people, be they military or not? Everyone is political, Mr. Kristol. Eisenhower warned of what would happen once the Military Industrial Complex became ensconced in our body politic. We are seeing the results now. 

Thirdly,  America has a recent history of doing just this: crazy, bizarre, and unnecessary projects of domestic spying. Perhaps Mr. Kristol missed the Harvard class on that period in American history - the period when these same ideological bents held sway, when communism (instead of terrorism) was the excuse, and when obviously crazy and bizarre domestic spying was rampant. May I please point Mr. Kristol to this handy Wikipedia biography of J. Edgar Hoover ? It was reported this morning (Dec 29) on NPR that the NSA had been attaching cookies to the computers of visitors to the NSA website in order to track their browsing. Does that sound kosher to you, Mr. Kristol?

He continues, "This is the fever swamp into which American liberalism is on the verge of descending." Again, we liberals are all just loonies. He finishes with this little nugget: "It would be good to have a responsible opposition party in the

United States today. It would be good to have a serious mainstream media. Too bad we have neither." To the former, I agree. The loyal opposition is not nearly oppositional enough. To the latter I will remind the readers of for just whom Mr. Kristol writes:

"© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved."

Yes, Mr. Kristol, too bad we have neither.

Support Our Vets

Band of Brothers 2006

The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.

—George Washington

Our PAC is in a unique position to reach out to voters. Our candidates are unimpeachable in their positions and opinions on the war as compared to those of either major political party. Incumbent Republicans and Democrats are, in many ways, limited because of their votes for the war, the split over its funding, and varying degrees of opinions that seem, at times, unsettled. But our candidates have been there, seen the tremendous cost, and know we cannot wait.

Herring Anyone?

Over the past couple of months, a great deal of discussion was heard about the war on Christmas. Most of that diatribe came from Faux News and Bill O'Lielly in particular.

I looked long and hard for evidence of this so-called war from avenues outside the Faux News sound machine.  Not so surprisingly, I didn't find a one.  Oh, I found a lot of "a friend of a friend" stuff that typically falls under the category urban legend, but nothing of any merit.

I began to ask myself, "Why all the fuss over a non-issue?"  Sure, I can see the ultra-religious right trying to make it into a big hoopla to raise their status at this time of year.  But why would O'Lielly allow himself to be lead like a bull by the nose to this trifle?

Then it came to me.  This whole thing was a red-herring.  A distraction from other important issues. 

There are many that I could talk about, but today I'm just going to mention one.  A very important one, in my eyes.

Christmas is a time of family.  A time when families get together and share their love and think of all the great times they had during the year.  If the year has been a sad one, it's a time for families to plan for a better future.

Many families devastated by Katrina didn't get to experience that this year.

I'm talking specifically about those families that still don't know where their children are.  Homes can be rebuilt, but missing children can tear a hole in a family's heart.  They don't know if the children are alive or dead.  If alive, they don't know if they are with people who are taking care of them.

As of December 23, 2005, 500 children were still classified as missing in Katrina's aftermath.  Sadly, the very organization that is supposed to be helping the victims of Katrina is prolonging their pain.

Why? The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will not share its evacuee database with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.  FEMA is blaming privacy laws for its lack of co-operation.

The FBI, which is also trying to resolve these cases, has also had trouble getting information from FEMA. 

It's shameful.

One of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report was for government-wide information sharing.  On December 5, 2005 the Commission came out with a report card on how all areas of the government have been doing meeting their recommendations.  The grade for government-wide information sharing?  D.

Some of you might be saying, "Well, the FBI is part of the government so, yeah FEMA should share information with them but the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children isn't.  FEMA was right to withhold information from them. "

You're right and you're wrong.  A look at the mandate and mission for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children shows that it is a private, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization.  Read a little further, though, and you see that it has congressional mandates.  One of those mandates is to

Provides technical assistance to individuals and law-enforcement agencies in the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and treatment of cases involving missing and exploited children.

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children can't follow a government mandate if FEMA won't share information.

Not much attention has been given to the 9/11 Commission's Report Card by Faux News.  Faux News tended to deride the report with the fact that we haven't been hit by terrorist inside the United States.  They conveniently forgot that the handling of the aftermath's of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma would have also been improved by better efforts to meet the Commission's recommendations.

So has the so-called war on Christmas been a red-herring?  Ask yourself, what other issues have we heard little about because of this "war"?  What else has our attention be diverted from?  How are things going in the areas of civil rights, economic issues, education, immigration, and the budget to name a few?  Has enough attention been given to these areas?  Or has Faux News and O'Lielly's red herring distracted everyone just like a cat distracted by a waving light?

Crossposted on Can't Keep Quiet!

How others view US foreign policy

A commentor to a recent post told me that the United States was a "sovereign nation" and as such could basicly do whatever it wanted.  My response was that that attitude was part of the reason the U.S.'s standing in the eyes of the world was going down. 

I was specifically thinking about the United States acting like a bully to get what it wanted. 

Turns out I was only partially right. 

This morning I read an opinion piece from TimesOnline out of the United Kingdom.  Turns out there's more about our foreign policy that other countries hate than just the governments arrogant, bullying side.

But the trouble is that while America aims to lead the free world, all over that world American foreign policy is going seriously adrift. Objectives are being stymied. Costs are mounting. Fruits are not coming in. The really serious objection to Bushite foreign policy is not that America is trying to strong-arm the rest of the world; it is that America is not succeeding.

Matthew Parris does a very good job of providing an overview of what is happening in various countries in Latin America because of the United States' foreign policy in those areas.  I won't try to paraphrase what Parris has to say.  You should really read it for yourselves.

One problem about US foreign policy: all over the world, they hate it

Of Men, of God, and Godless Men

Implying you are favored because you have faith does not negate the impact of the deeds done. Here to put that far more eleoquently that I can, is this week’s guest author, Jones of the Nile.

Dick Cheney is a man of God.  The 50 Senators who voted with him on Wednesday to cut federal deficits by $39.7 billion are also God-fearing (and God-loving!) men and women of moral values. 

Or so they’ll have you believe, while behind closed doors they cash in their Bibles for tax cuts, and their rosaries for special interest dollars.

Wednesday’s 51-50 vote in the Senate (with Cheney as the tie-breaker) on the federal deficit will likely be a monumental blow to millions of middle-class, working Americans, who will wake up today and find out that, as Dallas Morning News Washington Bureau Chief Carl Leubsdorf put it, “On its way out of town, Congress voted to give millions of Americans the fiscal equivalent of coal for their Christmas stockings.” 

Leubsdorf’s column explains well what this measure will do: It will raise the cost of student loans for millions of college students by raising interest rates. It will increase health care costs for millions of poor and elderly Americans by curbing benefits in Medicare and Medicaid. It will prevent millions of taxpayers from claiming local and statewide sales taxes on their federal income tax returns.

And here’s what the measure won’t do: It won’t significantly (or even nominally) reduce the U.S. deficit, which has ballooned under President Bush with the blind approval of the Republican-led Congress.

I’m struck by a very cruel sense of irony.  All over our TV screens we have folks who claim they are people of faith crusading over one issue or another. Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and their ilk have taken to putting the “Christ” back in Christmas, believing the holiday is under siege by misguided secular Americans. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, flipped his lid this week after a judge in Pennsylvania ruled that intelligent design belongs in a church and not in public school science classes, saying “This decision is a poster child for a half-century secularist reign of terror that's coming to a rapid end with Justice Roberts and soon-to-be Justice Alito.” And who could forget Pat Robertson’s call for the assassination of a world leader (or his wish of terror for the town of Dover, PA); Rev. Jerry Falwell blaming gays and pro-choice advocates for 9/11; the Web site “Repent America” saying that New Orleans deserved Hurricane Katrina because it promoted an annual conference for GLBT people…

I could go on and on. And while this group of ‘onward Christian soldiers’ marches on, 50 Christians and one lapsed Jew (Sen. Norm Coleman from Minnesota) voted on Wednesday to short-change the poor and cut social spending. Meanwhile, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans continue to fly out of the halls of Congress to the mouths of corporate fat cats. 

The hypocrisy is enough to make even the most compassionate person lose faith and hope. As someone who tries to pursue a spirituality of justice, I find myself often in dark places, ready to write off human nature, God, the Creator, or whatever it is that makes this world tick.  But in those dark places, I’m drawn to a quote by a nun named Joan Chittister, who writes a weekly progressive, faith-based column here. Here are Joan’s words…

“If what we wait for is not within us in the first place, we wait in vain. To wait with anxiety for peace is never to be peaceful. To wait for public success without feeling good about ourselves is to never know achievement. To wait for the spiritual life without a continuing sense of the presence of God is to be consumers of religion, perhaps, but to miss its meaning.”

Maybe it’s not religion itself that leaves a distaste in peoples’ mouths.  Perhaps it’s the consumers of religion – those who have little interest in trying to live a life rooted in compassion for the common good, but a lot of interest in playing religious “gotcha”.

Earlier this week I read a poem by Ewuare Osayande, an author and activist in Philadelphia, that he wrote after Hurricane Katrina. To close, here’s a quick excerpt:

they are pulling our dead out of the dead water now
counting them as if they were tallying votes
but you cannot measure disgrace with a body-count
and no one wins in death

what have we now but our heartbeats?
and tears
and the whys
of our questions keep coming

even Jesus was said
to have fed the poor
with a few fish and some bread
should we not expect more
from the richest nation
in the history of the world?

Cruel irony, indeed, that during the holiday season our lawmakers and TV moguls use their religion to seek power over others, instead of empowering the common good.

Rue of Law

The Rule of Law

That’s an interesting phrase for a Republican to say these days don’t you think? I thought they were so adamant about following the Rule of Law because that’s what the law was there for. That’s why they despise “activist judges” because they go against the Rule of Law in this country.

Yeah, well now we know that’s crap.

I think maybe we all just misunderstood them. They were not saying Rule of Law, they were saying Rue of Law. It sure seems they rue any law that got in their way. Whether it was pesky ethics laws like Tom DeLay, or pesky obstruction laws like Scooter Libby, or even those pesky YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE BRIBES laws like good old Duke Cunningham, there doesn’t seem to be a real desire to actually follow the laws that Rule us.

And then there is George.

The man seems to view laws the way Bill Clinton viewed his fidelity vows - something to pay lip service to. From the moment the man usurped power in that all to tainted election, we have seen more and more examples of his callous disregard for law. Don’t want to follow the Geneva Convention? Fine then declare the enemy your at WAR against not really prisoners of said war. Want to torture people to extract information but that is against the law? Redefine torture so narrowly that anything shy of a bullet to the head doesn’t count. Want to invade a country you have no authority or legal standing to invade? Hey skew the evidence and then question the patriotism of anyone who stands against you.

And now we have spying  on American citizens.

This one may be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Even Republicans are starting to get angry. The excuses flowing from the White House are starting to sound thin, even to the base. They are always the same old, tired excuses Bush uses for every mistake. Just look at the White House playbook on this one.

1. It helped save thousands of lives (that was Dick Cheney yesterday).

Of course there is no proof any lives were saved. There is no proof that any of the people spied on deserved to have the might of the NSA turned on them. Maybe they did. There is no evidence that seeking the proper permission to spy would have endangered any of us. In fact the way the FISA court works, he could have done so retroactively, but he choose to be above such petty laws. He did so willfully, and with great disregard for the reason the law was put into place to begin with. That callous disregard has even prompted one of the FISAL judges just quit in protest of Mr. Bush’s actions.

2. Blame The Messenger

Instead of taking blame for his failure to follow the Rule of Law, Mr. Bush stood in front of a national audience and derided the New York Times for breaking the story. He went so far to say it was a “shameful act” to disclose to the American people that we were being spied on.

Bullshit.

The Times held the story for over a year. Knowing the troubles the New York Times has had lately, they probably want to make sure the story was legit. When they decided to finally come forward with a story they should have ran one year ago, Mr. Bush summoned the editors into his presence and tried to persuade them not to run the story. It wasn’t to save your life - it was to save his ass. He knows he broke the law. He knows this one will haunt him for the rest of his doomed Presidency. It was an attempt at cover up that smacks of another infamous Republican president.

3. Claim that the Democrats knew about it.

This of course is a favorite tactic - claim that Congress, especially the Democrats were complicit in the act. Fail to mention several important points, such as the fact you didn’t reveal the entire scope. Or that you would not allow them to discuss the issue with anyone outside of the briefing, making it impossible for them to check or challenge the legality of the plan. Justread Senator John Rockefeller’s letter to Vice President Snarlpuss to see how complicit the Democrats were. The letter was handwritten because Sen. Rockefeller obeyed the Rule of Law and couldn’t even have his secretary type it.

4. Insist you will stay the course and keep doing whatever is questionable - because you can.

You know this tactic, it’s the one that kept the Bolton papers out of the Senate’s hands. It’s the one that was going to keep Harriet Mier’s papers from the Senate’s hands. It’s the tactic that keeps getting our guys killed in Iraq. It’s the one that says “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” The more he digs in, the more you know something is wrong.

5. Pull out the favorite G.O.P talking point and say Clinton did the same thing.

Of course neglect to reference that with any facts, and oh yeah that the spying was done legally. Or that most of the examples you quote are actually from the pre-Clinton days (spying on Strom Thurmond anyone?). What difference does the truth make as long as you can fire up the base with a little Clinton bashing.

It’s time to end this madness. I know the man will not be impeached. I know he probably won’t even be censured, even though Rep. John Conyers is bravely calling for it. I know this, because to many people in his party will break every rule, every law and every sense of decency to cover up the truth. but it is still time for all men and women of conscience in the House and Senate to stand up and demand accountability be restored in America. The president must obey the rule of law. That is what the Constitution sets out for him. That is what we elect him to do. That is what he must be forced to accept.

9/11 did not give any man license to turn America into a police state, no matter how badly he wishes it had.

Who are you going to trust to fix the damage done under Generalissimo Bush’s watch? Another Republican? Another unethical scumbag like Ted Stevens whose holding the soldiers hostage over ANWAR drilling? Are you going to put blind faith in Bill “Blind Trust” Frist?

Not if you have any sense. It’s time to take the country back.

The Fighting Dems...

One thing that has to have you wondering is why are there so many veterans returning home to run as Democrats as opposed to Republicans. I mean we aren’t talking about 50/50 here; we are talking about an ass kicking.

You think it might have anything to do with the complete incompetence in which the war was waged? You think it might have anything to do with the fact that soldiers can see through the thinly veiled mask of gross negligence that blankets the Bush Administration?

As of now there are 11 Iraqi War veterans who will be running on the Democratic ticket come next November, how many does the GOP have? 2.

Could it be a sense of national service, one that they know can only fulfilled by joining the ranks of the new Democratic Party? Could it be a sense of urgency brought on by being in the middle of the biggest military quagmire since

Somalia?

Politics don’t belong to the soldier, matters that politicians quibble over mean nothing on the battlefield, all that matters to a soldier who has bullets flying over his head is an intense and burning desire to make it home and make sure the guy standing to his right and left are coming home with him. Let the officials back home worry about school vouchers, let them worry about defending our social systems, let the men in the suits argue about the necessities of protecting the environment.

It’s all meaningless if you don’t make it home.

If there is one thing that the modern GOP needs to worry about it is men and women hardened by the battlefield. Men and women who are instilled with values, men and women who will not bend to pressures from either big business or the new American Taliban. Men and women who have one central and uniting strength; integrity.

I can’t say I know why a disproportionate number of veterans are running as Democrats, but I can take a few stabs at it. They probably realize that the modern GOP in an effort to save its soul has sold their soul to the highest bidder. It’s all about the power, being in control at all cost to the GOP, they no longer concern themselves with their task of looking out for Americans and making

America a better place for future generations.

They are more concerned with funding bridges that go no where; they are more concerned with legislation defending the symbols of a corporate

Christmas.

If there is one thing that these Fighting Dems are looking for it is integrity, one thing that the GOP no longer has.

They have energy and they have the strength to pull our party together, they have to strength to bring the imploding GOP to its knees.

More on the fighting Dems:

L. Tammy Duckworth (IL-06)
David Harris (TX-06)
Andrew Duck (MD-06)
Patrick Murphy (PA-08)
Paul Hackett (OH-Sen)
Bryan Lentz (PA-07)
David Ashe (VA-02)

Fighting Dems website from The Majority Report...

Cafferty Slams Bush

Via AmericaBlog who also has video:

Who cares about whether the Patriot Act gets renewed? Want to abuse our civil liberties? Just do it.

Who cares about the Geneva Conventions. Want to torture prisoners? Just do it.

Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA agents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it.

Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMDS is accurate. Want to invade Iraq? Just do it.

Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.

And the latest outrage, which I read about in "The New York Times" this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phone conversations? Just do it. What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.

The only thing is that it's not a joke. Wake up America!!!!

Baby Steps

Mags is one busy woman. She wields her cyber pen on no fewer than 5 blogs. You Forgot Poland! is a favorite of mine, but folks in California will like BARBARian Blog and NorCalPolitics. Blogs by Women has good things going for it, and the newly minted Weapons of Mass Description is in countdown to lauch. I'm not sure how she found time to be a guest author for us, but we're happy she's here.

As I'm sure you know, the House sided with Senator John McCain on a measure that would "ban torture and limit interrogation techniques" in U.S. detention facilities. The vote, 308 to 122, is a baby step toward creating a more uniform standard by which torture can be measured. But how many baby steps will it take? From the WaPo:

The vote sends a clear signal to the Bush administration that both chambers of Congress support the anti-torture legislation and want the government to adopt guidelines that aim to prevent damage to the U.S. image abroad. The White House has been aggressively pushing to create exceptions for CIA operatives and to water down McCain's language to keep it from limiting interrogators' options. But it appears that the administration and House Republican leaders lost some leverage yesterday.

Aside from our tarnished reputation abroad, many representatives believe - despite what Dick Cheney might believe - that extreme interrogation tactics lead to misleading information (hmm, that never happens, right?) because, as Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.) says, a detainee will just tell you "what he thinks you want to hear" only to stop the pain. Exactly. I'm not saying that the provenance of ALL of the bad WMD intelligence stemmed from our current, highly disputed torture practices, but I'm sure it had at least some involvement, when looked at from the aggregate. On Wednesday, Bush even accepted responsibility for listening to this faulty intelligence. This small victory in the House - while characterized as mostly symbolic - sends a message to the President that more and more people are not willing to support government-sanctioned torture. But, as is the case with our nation's political realm, the Army's newly released and classified set of interrogation methods will undoubtedly complicate things. While the it states that soldiers must adhere to the Geneva Convention, this 10-page addendum to the Army field manual gives soldiers EXACTLY what they need to know - in terms of what they can do and what they can't do in any given situation - in order to avoid committing an illegal interrogation. The criticism has already begun:

Some military officials said the new guidelines could give the impression that the Army was pushing the limits on legal interrogation at the very moment when Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, is involved in intense three-way negotiations with the House and the Bush administration to prohibit the cruel treatment of prisoners. In a high-level meeting at the Pentagon on Tuesday, some Army and other Pentagon officials raised concerns that Mr. McCain would be furious at what could appear to be a back-door effort to circumvent his intentions. "This is a stick in McCain's eye," one official said. "It goes right up to the edge. He's not going to be comfortable with this."

Since Bush still continues on with his "strategy" of continued occupation of Iraq, this nation really needs to put some stronger definitions around what are illegal and illegal forms of torture. We as a nation cannot sustain this war for much longer, and when all is said and done, our reputation in the international arena will look just like one of the many buildings in Iraq decimated by our bombs.

America: Seduced By War

Dr. Andrew Bacevich is a graduate of West Point and a Vietnam veteran. He’s currently a Professor of International Relations at Boston University.

His newest book is titled “The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War.”

Bacevich describes himself as conservative, and he says Americans have become seduced by a “military metaphysic.” All international problems are seen as military problems, and inevitably a military solution is always sought. It’s a variation on that old saying: if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

According to Bacevich, up through the end of World War II, America’s military needs were always gauged by the current situation. At the end of all of our major wars – including the Civil War, World War I and World War II – the extra troops raised for that war were disbanded when they were no longer needed.

Since the end of the Cold War, America has valued military power for its own sake. It’s now standard policy to maintain military capacity far beyond that of any adversary or any possible combination of adversaries. The defense budget is now 12% larger (adjusted for inflation) than the average defense budget during the Cold War era.

“By some calculations” (sorry, the author doesn’t get more specific than that) the United States now spends more on defense than every other country in the world put together. There’s no historical precedent for anything like this.

There are American bases and forces in dozens of countries. A lot of these countries are perfectly capable of providing their own defense. In every corner of the world, U.S. forces are training, planning, exercising. This has been standard for so long now that practically nobody – liberal or conservative – gives it a second thought.  It’s gradually become the norm, sort of like a huge glaring billboard that you’ve gotten used to and now you don’t even notice it any more.

Bacevich says “Whether any correlation exists between this vast panoply of forward-deployed forces on the one hand and antipathy to the United States abroad on the other has remained for the most part a taboo subject.”

I first heard of Andrew Bacevich through this article written by Pastor Anthony Robinson.

At some point in our recent history, “religious” leaders began promoting a “Crusade theory of warfare.” This has replaced the earlier doctrine of “Just War.” Under the mindset of the Crusade theory, supposedly “preventive” wars – like the Iraqi invasion – are justified.

This is a carryover from the Cold War. Some conservative religious leaders framed the Cold War as a worldwide struggle between Christianity and godless communism. In order to maintain our Crusade mindset, Islam has now been substituted for communism. Franklin Graham (Billy’s offspring) has denounced Islam as “a very evil and wicked religion.”

Other “Christian” leaders just lash out blindly at anyone and everyone who doesn’t meet their approval. Southern Baptist President Jack Graham has said, “Satan is the ultimate terrorist” and “this is a war between Christians and the forces of evil, by whatever name they choose to use.”

Yup, there’s evil everywhere, and it’s our job to stamp it out.

Ironically, during the third century some Christians splintered off into their own branch (called Manichaeism). This school of “Christianity” divided the world into good and evil, and thought it was the duty of all “good” people to stamp out evil. Manichaeism was branded by the Church as heresy from the time it first reared its head. It blinded people to their own capacity for evil, and it made self-delusion too easy.

As we can see, the Manichaeism school of “Christianity” has been alive and well in America for the past few decades.

Under our traditional doctrine of a Just War, war is considered the last option. In order to be “just,” a war has to meet the following requirements: “just cause” (i.e. self-defense); public declaration of war by a lawful authority; and no ulterior motives (vengeance, personal gain, etc.).

Which of these criteria does the Iraqi war meet?

“Christian” leaders who are pushing this modern-day Crusade have betrayed their faith. Andrew Bacevich – a Christian and a soldier – believes Christianity should serve as a check against the excesses of war and an over-reliance on the military. Christians should not be cheerleading for war.

cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country

Don't blame the ACLU or me we didn't close the megachurches

Yes I know; you're sick of this subject.  Me too.  But here I go...

I'm a New York Jew; a life long Democrat and a card carrying member of the ACLU.  Much of the time I'm very disappointed in the Democratic party, but at this moment it's better than the alternative.  I don't believe in all of the ACLU's causes, but I believe that everybody has a right to be represented.

But when I read blogs that blame the ACLU and/or minority groups for taking Christ out of Christmas, I have to say that as a Jew I, and most Jews, want you to celebrate Christmas.   On Christmas Jews traditionally went to the movies and ate Chinese food.  We think it would be good if you spent time in church or with your family; as we liked it when the theaters weren't packed.

In the 80's my friends practicing Catholics wanted to go to the Limelight on Christmas Eve after Midnight Mass.  I was beyond shocked. The Limelight was (is?) a disco in a former Catholic Church.  It sounded blasphemous to me.  It felt like eating pork on Yom Kippur.  We went; and I did have a life changing experience.

I don't think I believe in G-d but I respect people of any religion who truly believe.  If I were to feel that I was in any way denying you the ability to pray, I would feel that I have failed as both a person and a person who does worship The First Amendment.  I don't care about the manger in the courthouse.  But understand something else.  I care greatly that church and state stay separate.

Before the news of the mega churches closing I wrote a post in my personal blog about the Christmas/holiday season mess.  One of the comments was from a Jewish blogger, Neil, who is usually very witty and tres lite.  He really struck a chord; couldn't stop thinking about his comment and asked for permission to quote him.

Frankly, I think one of the things that makes our country so great is that the majority religion has tried so hard to make minorities feel comfortable. Where else have Jews and others been made to feel as equals and as comfortable with Christian holidays? Certainly not in many European countries where you are considered Jewish first, then a citizen of that country.

New York is not the rest of the country. I think it would be nice to bring back some of the religiosity to Christmas in big cities, so it isn’t such a consumerized holiday. Thank you, Christians, for being so good to the rest of us. You can now celebrate Christmas a little more openly.

However, things are different in smaller cities and towns around the country. Those places have a habit of mixing up religion and public policy. It is places like those where I don’t think it appropriate for the public sector to promote religion symbolism and ideology.

Here is where I want to delete most of what I wrote before Neil's comment.  It feels too silly.  As Jews we do feel grateful to the Christians in this country for allowing us to be full citizens.  We're grateful because our great grandparents weren't, usually, allowed to own land, have a profession or be citizens of their towns. They were allowed to be conscripted into the Czars army so they could wipe out Jewish villages. We're grateful that they left and came to this remarkable country. 

As a child I would ask my father why they didn't do anything about the camps.  "We didn't know."  After Viet Nam, I understood.  But Roosevelt, the people's hero, had evidence of the camps, and our country did nothing.  Nor did Roosevelt bomb the train tracks leading to them.

When boats of refuges came here, we turned them away, or didn't let them near here, knowing that we were dooming them to death.  After the war we took people who had been in concentration camps and put them in displaced persons camps.  We had strict quotas on the number of refuges let in here

Yet we were still grateful because we who were here, and those of us yet to be born were afforded the opportunity to be full citizens.  When we bought houses we remembered our ancestors who weren't allowed to.  It still amazes me and I'm basically third generation; but I heard so many stories and met so many people with numbers on their arms.  I have never taken being free for granted.  You accept us as we have never before been accepted in modern history. 

Separation of church and state is built into our Constitution.  If you understand the history of Jews in America, you will understand why we care so much about The First Amendment.  It's not just a symbol of our freedom, but a tool that is used to preserve every Americans right to keep church and state separate.  Here are two quotes by Fran Quigley, Executive Director, Indiana Civil Liberties Union

For example, the Alliance Defense Fund celebrates the season with an "It's OK to say Merry Christmas" campaign, implying that the ACLU has challenged such holiday greetings. (As part of the effort, you can get a pamphlet and two Christmas pins for $29.)
The website WorldNetDaily touts a book claiming "a thorough and virulent anti-Christmas campaign is being waged today by liberal activists and ACLU fanatics." The site's magazine has suggested there will be ACLU efforts to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, fire military chaplains, and expunge all references to God in America's founding documents. (Learn more for just $19.95 . . .

Of course, there is no "Merry Christmas" lawsuit, nor is there any ACLU litigation about U.S. currency, military chaplains, etc. But the facts are not important to these groups, because their real message is this: By protecting the freedom of Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christians through preventing government entanglement with religion, the ACLU is somehow infringing on the rights of those with majority religious beliefs

Many of us are fully assimilated; marry outside our religion; feel and look WASPier than the biggest WASP.  But there's always one moment when something happens that reminds us that other people view us as different.  I know that most people are rational; that most people don't believe this.  (Did a Google "ACLU" "Christmas" search and this was the number one document.

According to ACLU "Christmas haters" everyting refering to Christ inpublic has to go. But try as they might, they can't take the spirit out of Christmas, something this group is in dire need of. Boy talk about selfishness

Yes let's talk about being selfish; selfish is the same woman saying the following. 

The Constitution can be read front to back, sideways, upside down, and nowhere does it read there needs to be a separation of church and state. Good grief! The framers would have been very dense or dumber than a box of rocks, to put separation of church and state in the most "intentionally" misunderstood document, and then proceeded to have a nation built on God and in every aspect of their lives

Good grief, indeed.  If this is true then I have to not only be grateful to you, but bow down to your religious superiority, and that is where I draw the line. 

Just understand that we're not your problem.  You are.  If a person can find G-d in a concentration camp, any American can find G-d anywhere.  It's up to you to put Christ back in Christmas, not us. 

I could never celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday.  Why?  It is the symbolic observation of Christ's birthday no matter how you look at it.  But selfishly I want you to celebrate it so that I can see the trees, lights, decorations and even go to some Christmas parties.  That's right; Christmas parties at peoples homes.  Every other year my friends make an Italian feast in their Tudor house in Forest Hills Gardens, a picture perfect Ives & Currier Christmas community.  It's wonderful, but I will never have a Christmas dinner in my apartment.

Merry Christmas; Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Winter Solistice. I will call this season whatever you want me to call it as long as The First Amendment remains intact.  And I will always be grateful to the USA for allowing my family to live as full citizens for over a century.  Grateful but I will never feel less an American than you do.  And I thank G-d for organizations like the ACLU that make sure I will always be a full American.

Crossposted at www.courtingdestiny.com

Real Campaign Finance Reform

(I posted an early version of this on my personal blog almost a year ago. At that time I was only getting about 2-3 page hits per day, so it's probably nothing you've seen before. This is not a partisan issue. It's an issue for anyone who believes that he or she has a responsibility to participate in the political process and feels a bit frustrated by the status quo.)

Premise: Without significant reform in campaign finance, a truly representative government cannot exist.

Taxation without representation was one of the major factors given as justification for the American Revolution. That condition exists in America today.

Despite both parties claims to the contrary, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party currently represents the direct interests of Americans. Rather, members of both parties are significantly beholden to the interests of the lobbyists who finance their campaigns and, as a result, both parties often act first in those lobbyists' interests.

Sometimes the interests of lobbyists match those of the American people; at other times they are very different. It would not be fair to make a categorical claim either way. Regardless, though, it is still not appropriate in a free republic that political lobbies should affect policy and legislation to a degree so totally disproportionate to the segment of the population that they directly represent.

Free speech is promised to American citizens in the Bill of Rights. Corporate entities are not themselves citizens, and are guaranteed no such right (precedents around advertising and campaign laws would tend to support this). But so long as a political lobby or party represents a group of citizens, its existence is an extension of that group's political will, and the right to free political speech should logically be extended to said lobby or party.

However, at this point, the only clear correlation between any given lobby and its relative degree of influence on policy and legislation is the amount of financial power that the lobby happens to wield. Unfortunately, this creates situations in which corporate-backed lobbies can direct vast amounts of money into major politicial campaigns through PACs in order to protect interests that are of questionable benefit, at best, to the average American. Big tobacco, anyone?

This brings us to a dilemma. It takes a significant amount of money to wage a successful political campaign at the state or national level, regardless of party or platform. While individual donations make up a portion of this funding, the most 'voca'l funding is funneled through PACs. And so while only individual citizens are granted the right to elect candidates, the candidates available to them have been pre-selected, for all intents and purposes, by those PACs -- groups which often mirror the aims of large corporate interests.

Seven of the top twenty campaign contributors to the 2004 election gave large sums of money (over $160,000) to both George W. Bush and John Kerry.  Now, that's not to say that these companies were directing their employees to make particular contributions, but it does create a situation in which incumbents clearly know that companies like WalMart or Microsoft have helped to bankroll their campaigns -- and these companies certainly won't neglect to remind them, either.

As far as those companies were concerned, the election was over long before November 2nd, 2004. And their guy had won by a landslide.

Depressed yet?

So what's the answer here... ...abolish PACs? ...make it harder for an employee or family member of a Fortune 100 company to make a campaign contribution? ...pile on more rules and new campaign spending limits?

No, those answers all fall short because they violate free speech in some manner, there are ways to weasel around all of them and they only treat symptoms, not the underlying problem. The answer is simply this:

Give back control to the American people by giving them the
opportunity to support their political interests directly and materially.

Here's how it would work:

1. Create a standardized national registry of election committees, political parties and PACs. Require that each group develop a concise statement of purpose, a set of guiding principles and an independent financial audit process. Make this information publicly available via the internet, post offices and public libraries.
2. Amend the IRS W-4 form to allow for the election of a pre-tax deduction of up to $200/yr per household for the purpose of campaign and lobbying donations. In 2003, the Census Bureau reported 111 million US households. With a modest 10% rate of participation at the maximum level, this would provide 2.2 billion dollars per year in funding. Give the American people the feeling that they have a real stake in the political process, the selection of electoral candidates and the day-to-day legislative process, and I think you'll see an even higher rate of return.
3. Amend the various IRS 1040 forms to allow for the confidential designation of campaign funding in percentile increments. Each of the individuals and groups in the standardized registry would have a unique contributor code, and would receive designated funds assigned by taxpayers following tax season.

So what would this accomplish?

First, it would give people a direct, recognizable stake in the full political process -- something that's totally absent. Elections are important, but the day-to-day 'puck handling' of issues is even more important, and today you and I have no guarantee of representation in that process.

Second, it would give people the ability to force issues that are important to them, but provide no short-term financial advantage to the backers of corporate-directed PACs.

Third, it would force major candidates to take their constituents more seriously, on more than one day out of every fourth or sixth year.

The beauty of it is that it's truly democratic. If you think the NRA is doing a bang-up job, fine, pencil them in. If you think we should be supporting the Kyoto protocol, fill in the box for Greenpeace.

Would something like this ever happen? I don't know.

Could it work? Definitely.

Where are the truth tellers?

I had orginally planned to write about other things today.  On Saturday, however, my plans changed. 

On Saturday, two truth tellers died. 

Richard Pryor was one of those truth tellers.  Pryor never lied about his life.  He was chillingly honest in his routines when discussing drugs and his experiences. 

Eugene McCarthy was the other truth teller.  McCarthy was a former senator from Minnesota.  In 1968 he challenged then President Lyndon B Johnson for the position of Democratic Presidental Nominee.  McCarthy opposed the war in Vietnam.  He felt that the people running the war didn't know what they were doing.  McCarthy wasn't afraid to let people know what he thought.  His presidental campaign led to Johnson withdrawing from the race. 

There don't seem to be many truth tellers out there any more.  People unafraid to stand up for what they feel is right.  People who do not let the establishment shout them down and silence them.

Nowadays, when people stand up and say something that goes against the current administration they are called un-American, traitors, fools.  The people making these charges?  The administration and those who seem to exist solely as a mouthpiece for the administration. 

John Murtha is a truth teller.  He has said what the so-called liberal media doesn't want to say.  He's told us that the vast majority of insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis.  Not outsiders as previously claimed. 

Murtha's resolution to leave Iraq was painted as an irresponsible call to "cut and run."  That was not the case.  How do I know that?  I read his resolution.  By their very statements, those that say that Murtha is calling for the U.S. to cut and run show that they haven't read the resolution.

4) Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is
5) hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable
6) date.
(emphasis added by me)

Harold Pinter is another truth teller.  He won the Nobel prize in Literature this year.  His speech has been slammed as an attack against America and irrational by Faux News and other mouthpieces for the administration.

His speech, however, told many truths.  He spoke about United States foreign policy now and in the past.  Weither we want to admit it, the United States has supported oppressive governments.  We provided Hussien with weapons back in the early 80s when we wanted his help against Iran.  We supported governments in Central America that killed their own people.  Very little of this can be found in text books. 

About Iraq, Pinter said:

As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true. It was not true.

Later in his speech he said,

[The United States] no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.

If you read his whole speech, you see that this opinion is addressed towards the governments in the US and Great Britain. 

But then, that's the problem.  Those who wish to disregard the truth tellers don't bother to read or listen to what they have to say.  They pull out bits and pieces or twist what is said to make the truth teller look foolish or un-American.  Or they ignore what they have to say completly. 

Where are the truth tellers?  They are out there.  We just need to listen to them.   

That is, when we can find them.

Crossposted on Can't Keep Quiet!

Ann Coulter Gets Boo'd Out of Her own State

It's amazing how closely she resembles Greg Allman (sorry Greg).

Christmas For Sale

Today’s guest post comes from a blogger we were privileged to host about six months ago. His fine mind, practical perspective, and uncanny knack for getting to the heart of the matter without camouflaging fluff or rhetoric makes him a favorite of mine. Regardless of the importance faith plays in your personal life, faith plays an increasing role in American political life. It's good to remember that what's happening there is a sham, and a shame to many practicing Christians in this country.

I'm not feeling well tonight so instead of doing work I was resting and watching TV, and I decided to watch a little Bill O'Reilly.

During one part he was talking with a lawyer and a Pentecostal Minister about the "siege" upon Christmas. The lawyer talked about the ACLU and a case he had against them, that didn't catch my attention.

And the Minister really didn't catch my attention much either. He talked about preaching from his pulpit about supporting those businesses that say Merry Christmas in their ads and slogans. He didn't even say don't shop the other places, but just support those that do say Merry Christmas.

I wasn't sure what was making me unsettled, maybe it was Fox News, maybe I was looking for something.

But then Bill mentioned certain companies that underwrite his show, and I realized what it was.

We are turning Merry Christmas into nothing more than a slogan.

If you say the magic words "Merry Christmas" then I will shop at your store.

If you say "Merry Christmas" I will reward you with money.

It doesn't matter if you also say Happy Kwanza, Chanukah, Solstice, or Blessed Harry Potter Day, just say Merry Christmas and you will make me happy.

Falwell is doing something similar with his Friend or Foe campaign, talking about the Target Stores that apparently don't say Merry Christmas anymore.

It doesn't matter if you don't even believe in Christ, or act morally, or whatever. Just say Merry Christmas and I'll give you money this season..

It makes me sad that all we fight for are words. I wish I could hear more people fight for those that are homeless, those that work but don't have health care, for trying to save our money as opposed to driving ourselves further into debt.

But all I'm hearing about Christmas is, "Just Say IT!"

Christmas has become so mediocre by Black Friday and the sales we all try to get to, that now we make it even more pointless by turning into a marketing campaign.

I have this image of Jesus running into the temple and throwing out the money changers. I actually think that he would be more happy with no mention of Christmas in stores, at least that way they aren't selling it.

I'm not stupid, simply telling me "Merry Christmas" doesn't mean you believe in Christmas or that you actually mean it either.

In a strange way I believe those "people" that want us to stop saying Merry Christmas understand the power of that message more than those that are supposed to be preaching it.

Those "people" understand that Merry Christmas actually means something very important.

Now those "people" maybe afraid of Christmas and are trying to stop it in public discourse, but however I may disagree with those "people", I give them this, they fully understand that Merry Christmas actually means something powerful and important.

Those that are upset that Target isn't advertising Christmas, just turn Christmas into a thing to be bought.

And those are the people that don't understand the power and importance of Christmas.