The Watch

Fox News Accountability?

2008-06-13T11:24:00.005-04:00

I keep hoping that at some point we will finally reach a tipping point beyond which the millions of Americans who believe that Fox News is a legitimate news organization will finally see them as what they are; the political propaganda wing of the Republican party. While I'm not foolish enough to believe that we'll actually see this happen any time soon, a series of gaffes at Fox News has given me reason to hope. Not so much that Fox News is doing anything worse than what they've been doing all along. It's just that lately they've had to issue a series of apologies and retractions because the public has been calling them to the carpet.

First was a gaffe by Fox News pundit Liz Trotta. While being interviewed by FOX News anchor Eric Shawn for a standard talking head segment, Trotta said;

“And now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, uh, Obama. Well, both, if we could.”

Needless to say, this didn't go over very well. Even a joking suggestion that someone assassinate a candidate for the Presidency of the United States is going to land you in hot water. And Trotta found herself back-pedeling. She was forced to issue an on-air apology the next day.

Second was an incident in which E.D. Hill, the anchor of Fox News show America's Pulse, suggested that Barack Obama and his wife affectionately bumping fists before his victory speech on becoming the Democratic candidate for president could be seen as a “terrorist fist jab”.

“A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently,” said Hill in her show. “We'll show you some interesting body communication and find out what it really says.”

Following that, Hill, who has been with Fox News Channel since 1998, lost her show, although she is to stay with the network in an as yet undetermined capacity. She issued a standard half-assed apology following her gaffe, but it wasn't enough. So off she goes.

Third, Fox News took heat because of an onscreen caption referencing Obama's vow to protect his wife from critics.

The caption read; “Outraged Liberals: Stop Picking on Obama's Baby Mama!”

The misogynist and racist implications of the term “baby mama” -- frequently used in rap songs and most recently in a film about a white-trash surrogate mother -- were apparently offensive enough to female employees inside the company that Fox executives issued a quasi-apology. Fox's Senior Vice President of Programming Bill Shine said in a statement “A producer on the program exercised poor judgment in using this chyron during the segment.” A Fox staffer said that others internally were bothered by describing the potential first lady, and very accomplished woman who Princeton and Harvard Law educated, as the senator's “baby mama.”

It's all just more of the same. Fox News isn't doing anything differently than what they've been doing for years. But now they're catching some heat from it. Personally, I'm dancing in my chair to see even this little bit of accountability being levelled at Fox News. They've been getting a free pass for far too long. They're reaching a point where they're offending their own audience. That's something I never honestly thought could happen. Obviously, they may lighten up, or the legitimate media may stop covering their gaffes. Either way, it's good to see Fox News on the defensive.

One has to wonder if Barack Obama will personally challenge these deliberate slights from Fox in the same way that his campaign has worked to destroy the more insidious online rumor mill that claim that he's Muslim, that he won't say the Pledge of Allegiance and that he's hiding his birth certificate. He's placed online a web site titled Fight the Smears that addresses those issues. Will he also put up a Fox News section? How can he not? They're going to be working over-time trying to find ways to discredit the Senator and smear his family.

For now, at least, it's enough for me that Fox News is actually having to backpedal a bit. They've been so successful in their role as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party that they've taken on an air of untouchability; an arrogance that came from believing that they were riding the crest of a wave of Neo-Conservatism that was sweeping the country into a Right-Wing paradise where the Democratic Party would be marginalized, Liberals would become an endangered species, and the United States would exist in a state of perpetual war during which every citizen would wrap themselves in the flag and wouldn't dare question their appointed Republican leaders.

Now it seems that at least in some ways, that wave is receding. Hopefully the American people will continue to hold Fox News accountable, and proclaim that while it's apparently acceptible to attack political leaders with misinformation and lies, it's unacceptable that they use misogyny and racism as a means to that end. That may not be the resounding rejection of Fox News that I could hope for, but it's a step in the right direction. Personally, I hope their testosterone driven school-boy bully shtick will keep them putting their collective foot in their mouths. Nothing else could reveal Fox News for what they really are better than their own words suggesting that an American Presidential candidate has ties to terrorists, that perhaps he should be assassinated, and that his wife is the kind of trash that rappers talk about in their songs.

In an unrelated incident, but something that I want to mention in staying with the theme of Fox News accountability, I want to mention something concerning Bill Moyers. For those who might not know, Bill Moyers is one of the grand old statesman of professional American journalism. He has led the fight for the restoration of an independent 4th estate, and has therefore been a target of the Bush administration, in concert with Fox News, which has launched unrelenting personal attack on Moyers' reputation and credibility. As part of that attack, Bill O'Reily recently sent one of his street thugs, Porter Berry, to ambush Moyers at the National Conference for Media Reform, to try to antagonize him (and I imagine get juicy tape that could be heavily edited to make Moyers look like an idiot).

Well, that didn't work out so well.

Moyers emasculated the young punk, humiliating him in front of about 20 real journalists. He described O'Reilly on tape as not a journalist, as he describes himself, but a pugilist (a professional fighter or boxer). The segment ended with the real journalists who witnessed the ambush chasing poor old Porter out of the building giving him a little of his own O'Reilly medicine. Finally. Fox News is getting some of what's coming to them.

If you want a good laugh, check out the Moyers video on YouTube.

References:

Wikipedia: Liz Trotta
Wikipedia: E.D. Hill
Fox Address Baby Mama Drama
Obama's Fight the Smears web site

Julie Gerberding's Subjective Reality

2007-10-30T12:18:00.000-04:00

The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Julie Gerberding, addressed the Senate last Tuesday on the health impact of global warming in the United States. On most news days, this would go un-noticed. It would have most likely been reported, but the public wouldn't have noticed it. After all, Paris Hilton was probably shopping somewhere, and we all want to know about that, don't we?

What made Dr. Gerberding's appearance dramatic enough to temporarily bump Paris Hilton to the sidelines was the fact that the White House altered her report. White House press secretary Dana Perino explained that the draft was edited because officials didn't believe it matched scientific conclusions in a report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Okay, let's set aside for a moment the laughable idea that White House political appointees are better informed about the science in reports by the IPCC (the U.N.-chartered scientific group that shares this year's Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore) than Dr. Gerberding and her staff are. As director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Gerberding has particular expertise.

Among the six pages that were removed from the original twelve-page draft by the Office of Management and Budget (which is staffed and run by true-believing political appointees) were specific things that Dr. Gerberding wanted to tell Congress. Such as “scientific evidence supports the view that the Earth's climate is changing,” yet “the public health effects of climate change remain largely unaddressed,” and that areas in the northern part of the country “will likely bear the brunt of increases in ground-level ozone and associated airborne pollutants. Populations in Midwestern and Northeastern cities are expected to experience more heat-related illnesses as heat waves increase in frequency, severity, and duration.”

The draft version explained why climate change is a public health concern. It described the expected impact of climate change, including new disease patterns and food and water shortages for some people. It included predictions about the potential consequences of increased air pollution, the rampant growth of plants that cause allergies and the creation of environments that promote water- and food-borne disease. “Catastrophic weather events such as heat waves and hurricanes are expected to become more frequent, severe, and costly,” it said.

All this disappeared, leaving only wordy generalities like “climate change is anticipated to have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans and the nation's public health infrastructure.” The shorter version focuses on public health preparedness for climate change, including how the CDC is tracking diseases, doing heat-stroke modeling for cities to predict vulnerable populations and helping local officials plan for environmental emergencies.

So. Okay. The White House changed the report. Why is this even an issue. Who cares, right?

This is why it's an issue ...

The Bush administration has a history of political appointees rewriting the work of government scientists to bring their findings into line with White House policy and objectives. A Bush official once bragged to a reporter that the administration had the power to create its own reality. I believe the term that was used was “subjective reality”.

There was the 24-year-old Bush political appointee and college dropout at NASA, who reworked agency materials to take into account his belief that the big bang was only an “opinion” that should be accorded equal weight with intelligent design.

In 2005, after NASA scientist James E. Hansen said that greenhouse gas emissions were creating “a different planet,” his superiors tried to control his appearances and limit his interviews.

In 2003, the EPA did its best to bury an analysis by staff members showing that a proposal to cap carbon dioxide emissions by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman would not seriously damage the economy.

In 2003, Philip Cooney, who then headed the Council on Environmental Quality in the Bush White House, made more than 300 changes to a report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on global warming. Cooney's changes exaggerated supposed uncertainties about global warming and removed many references to the phenomenon entirely.

In 2002, the White House made the Environmental Protection Agency drop a chapter on the risks of climate change from an annual EPA report that for six years had included such information.

On Tuesday of last week, Office of Management and Budget (the agency that edited Dr. Gerberding's report) spokesman Sean Kevelighan said the OMB reviews documents and testimony to see whether they “line up well with the national priorities of the administration.”

As you can imagine, perception of this issue has been largely determined by political affiliation. Conservatives (who still aren't convinced that global warming is real and consider the hang-wringing over it to be politically motivated) naturally believe that this is just another example of the Liberal mainstream media finding yet another issue to use to attack the Bush Administration. Liberals (who believe that global warming is real and is an issue that we need to take seriously) naturally believe that this is yet another example of the White House abusing Executive power, and they ARE using this to attack the Bush Administration.

What you have is two sides tugging back and forth over issues that contradict with their political ideology. Somewhere in the middle the science is forgotten.

Dr. Gerberding isn't too worried about. Wednesday she said that she was happy with her testimony and that the review process was normal. In a lunch-hour speech before the Atlanta Press Club, Gerberding said she made all the points to Congress that she wanted to make. “This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard,” she said of the furor. “I don't let people put words in my mouth. I spoke the truth to Congress.”

Despite myself, I can't help thinking “well, that's what we would expect her to say, isn't it?“ Julie Gerberding wants to keep her job. And technically what she said IS true. She did speak the truth to Congress. She didn't lie about what's going on. But in her statement is a bit of political sleight-of-hand. It's not what she said that people are taking issue with. It's what she didn't say. It's what was left out that tongues are wagging about, not what was included.

If you state in a report that in a generic sense there is a possibility that a foreign army might invade our country, that perhaps we should be prepared for the eventuality, just in case, you're probably going to be seen as reasonable and prudent. But what if you leave out the fact that a foreign army is camped just over the next hill and will be invading the capitol at dawn, just because your superiors don't believe that the foreign army exists? Did you lie in your statements? No. You told the truth. You just didn't tell the whole truth.

In short, what I'm trying to say is that what should have been a report on the problem of global warming was turned into a political issue by the Bush Administration. Don't worry. Be happy. What you don't know can't hurt you.

Meanwhile, in the real world, British scientists, in a paper published this week, say that fossil records show mass extinctions of species are linked to warming tropical seas. And they say, based on Intergovernmental Panel projections, Earth is on course to reach extinction-level warming in about 100 years. If that level is reached, the panel says, “20 to 30 percent” of animal species will be at risk of extinction.

One has to wonder if there will be anyone left 100 years from now to debate whether or not there's a problem.

Reference
- Dr. Julie Gerberding's original draft testimony

Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

2007-07-04T12:59:00.000-04:00

Well. What can one say about President Bush's decision to commute Lewis “Scooter” Libby's sentence that hasn't been said already?

Okay, so you know if I make a statement like that, I'm obviously going to add to the pile. In spite of the extensive coverage of this issue, over the past few days I've found myself trying to explain to a lot of people just why this is such an issue. Most people didn't follow the investigation of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who was trying to determine who revealed the identity of CIA operative Valarie Plame, much less Libby's indictment and subsequent conviction of purjury and obstruction of justice.

Okay. We should start from the beginning, to put this all into perspective.

In late February 2002, responding to inquiries from the Vice President's office and the Departments of State and Defense about the allegation that Iraq had a sales agreement to buy uranium in the form of yellowcake from Niger, the CIA authorized a trip by former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson to Niger to investigate the possibility. Wilson decided that there “was nothing to the story,” and presented his report in March 2002. The Bush Administration ignored this report and continued to use the yellowcake story as part of its justification for an impending invasion of Iraq.

After the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Wilson, frustrated by the White House's rejection of his conclusions, wrote a series of articles questioning its factual basis. In one of these op-eds (published in the New York Times on July 6, 2003), Wilson argued that President George Bush, in the State of the Union Address, misrepresented intelligence leading up to the invasion and suggested that the Iraqi regime had indeed sought uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons.

According to federal court records, beginning in mid-June 2003, Bush administration officials discussed with various reporters the employment of a classified, covert, CIA agent, named Valerie E. Wilson (Joseph Wilson's wife, oddly enough, who is also known as Valerie Plame). On July 14, 2003, in a newspaper column, Robert Novak disclosed Plame's name and status as an “operative” who worked in a CIA division on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Mrs. Wilson's husband, stated in various interviews and later writings that his wife's identity was covert and that members of the administration had knowingly revealed it as retribution for his op-ed (especially the one entitled “What I Didn't Find in Africa”, published in The New York Times on July 6, 2003).

On September 16, 2003 the CIA sent a letter to the US Department of Justice, stating that Plame's status as a CIA undercover operative was classified information. They requested a federal investigation. I should probably mention here that Knowingly leaking the identity of a covert agent is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and the CIA is required by law to report any such possible criminal violations. If convicted of such an act, one faces possible charges of treason. It is considered a treasonous act by the United States Government.

Then Attorney General John Ashcroft referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, which was directed by Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury. The CIA leak grand jury investigation resulted in the indictment and conviction of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, on five counts of obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements to the grand jury and federal investigators.

On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. On June 5, 2007, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison, a fine of $250,000, and two years of supervised release after his prison term.

End of story, right? Justice done, right?

Aw, not so fast. We're talking about a member of the Bush Administration.

On July 2, 2007, President Bush commuted Libby's sentence. Libby will not see one day of his prison term. Following the traditions of his Presidency, Bush made a statement that generally was met with derision by everyone but Conservatives.

“I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive,” he said in a statement. “Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.”

“My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby,” Bush continued. “The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.”

Okay. I've read this many times. I'm still trying to follow the logic. What Bush is saying is that if you are a member of his administraiton, being convicted on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements in a Federal investigation, is no big deal. What is important is not the crimes for which Lewis Libby was convicted, but that he might suffer because of it.

Ironically, in a recent, almost identical separate case, a former federal employee and a decorated Vietnam veteran, Victor Rita, was convicted of lying to a grand jury, making false statements and committing perjury. He was sentenced to 33 months. President Bush apparently did not see fit to commute Victor Rita's sentence. Therefore, one would think Rita's crimes were worse that Libby's, right? After all, a decorated Vietnam veteran with a 25 year career in the military would have to do something pretty bad for such a sentence. Right?

Here's what he did. Rita had made two false statements to a federal grand jury. The jury was investigating a gun company. Prosecutors believed that buyers of a kit, called a “PPSH 41 machinegun ‘parts kit,’” could assemble a machinegun from the kit, and that the company had not secured the necessary permits to import machine guns. Rita had purchased one of the kits and, when he was contacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, he agreed to let the agent inspect the kit. But before meeting with the agent, he sent back the kit and, instead, substituted a kit that did not amount to a machine gun. The government contended that he lied to the grand jury about his actions and he was convicted for making false statements and committing perjury.

Wow. That's so much worse than lying to Federal investigators about who committed treason by revealing the name of a covert CIA agent, and, worse, who was involved in covering it up (Conservatives, please note here that this is what we call “sarcasm”).

One would think that Bush would commute the sentence of a decorated Vietnam veteran, since he's in the mood for bypassing the Judicial system. Sadly, Victor Rita will receive no such consideration from President Bush. The President is very selective with his compassion. In his previous political capacity as governor of Texas, Bush showed none of those on the state’s death row the compassion he reserved for “Scooter” Libby. He sent 150 men and two women to their deaths — executing the first female in Texas in 100 years, Karla Faye Tucker, after being petitioned by The Pope to commute her death sentence to life in prison, and then publicly mocking her plea that he spare her life.

So what makes Lewis “Scooter” Libby so different? Why does he deserve such special treatment when Bush has been more than willing to let everyone else swing from the trees?

Oh, come on!

Even worse, the President refused to rule out granting a full pardon at some point down the road that would wipe Libby's slate completely clean. Libby still has a $250,000 fine to pay, two years of probation and can't practice law to help pay for his mountain of legal bills.

“I rule nothing in or nothing out,” Bush said, further describing the commuted sentence as “a very difficult decision.”

Does anyone seriously believe that Lewis “Scooter” Libby will have any trouble making a living? He's now free to be a hero to Bush administration supporters (who gave $3.5 million to his legal defense fund and sent almost 200 letters in his favor to the judge in his case).

“He is a hero among many conservatives who feel he was wrongly prosecuted,” George Washington University law Prof. Jonathan Turley said. “He could be the next Ollie North.”

Fred Thompson, unabashed conservative and soon-to-be-declared Republican presidential candidate, who helped organise a Libby defence fund, said “I am very happy for Scooter Libby. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.”

Poor Scooter. How he has suffered.

Others were not so kind. In regard to Bush's assertion that “I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive,” the Washington Post pointed out Tuesday that the sentence was anything but excessive.

“Three of every four people convicted of obstruction of justice have been sent to prison over the past two years, a total of 283 people, according to federal judiciary data,” the Post reported. “The average term was more than five years. The largest group of defendants were sentenced to between 13 and 31 months in prison, exactly where Libby would have fallen on the charts.”

According to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald; “The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.”

Former Ambassador Joe Wilson, whose wife Valerie Plame's covert CIA status was compromised, starting this whole thing, had a few thoughts of his own.

“The fact that the president short-circuited our system of justice by giving Scooter Libby a get-out-of-jail-free card, thereby eliminating any incentive that he would tell the truth to the prosecutor, guarantees that there is a cloud of suspicion put over the office of the president and makes him potentially a suspect in an ongoing obstruction of justice case,” declared Wilson, adding, “This was a coverup.”

Indeed. Anyone who believes that the justice in this issue is not Lewis “Scooter” Libby being convicted to 30 months in prison for four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, but President Bush commuting Libby's prison sentence, is, at best, deluded, or worse, a Conservative idealogue who believes that “Republican” translates to “unerringly moral”. Libby was left off of the hook to remove any incentive he might have to cooperate with Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. With the specter of prison removed, why would Libby talk?

By commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, President Bush has perhaps laid to rest the investigation into the “outing” of Valerie Plame's status as a covert CIA operative. We may never know the details now, unless at some future date Libby has a sudden upswelling of morality and decides to clear his conscience.

One has to wonder if on Tuesday night, somewhere in the dark, damp lair of Vice-President Cheney that's hidden a hale mile underground beneath the White House, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney drank a toast to the successful culmination of their campaign to shut down the investigation into the Plame Affair. One can imagine the maniacally evil laughter that echoed through the hallways as they celebrated snatching justice from the grasp of the courts of law. And one also has to imagine if somewhere in those hallways, a Secret Service agent looked down at his shoes in shame and shuddered.

- Wicasta Lovelace

- Watch Alert archived post

VA to Give Pentacles for Fallen Wiccan Soldiers

2007-04-28T15:01:00.000-04:00

Like many Pagans, I've wondered for quite some time why the federal Department of Veterans Affairs has, for 10 years, fought against placing the pentacle, a symbol of the Wicca faith, on the grave markers of Wiccan soldiers buried in government cemeteries. One would think that if a soldier dies in combat, and is a follower of a religion which is officially recognized by the U.S. military, that placing the symbol of that soldier's faith upon his or her marker would not be an issue.

Except we live in a country in which the president of the United States does not believe these soldiers have such a right, in spite of the fact that they died fighting for their country in a war which he himself initiated. In a 1999 appearance on ABC's Good Morning America, then-Texas Gov. Bush responded to questions about a controversy which was raging at the time over Wiccan soldiers being allowed to hold services at the Fort Hood army installation in Texas. “I don't think witchcraft is a religion,” he said. “I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made.”

While there is no proof that the White House has been directly involved in the issue concerning the pentacle on the grave markers of Wiccan soldiers, Bush has not wavered from his belief that Wicca is not a religion, and has never apologized for his remarks. His beliefs in regards to Wicca has apparently been echoed by the Veterans Administration, and led to their long, protracted struggle to keep the Wiccan pentacle out of government cemeteries.

Well, last Monday the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs announced a settlement that would allow the Wiccan pentacle to be added to the list of emblems allowed in national cemeteries and on goverment-issued headstones of fallen soldiers. The settlement calls for the pentacle, whose five points represent earth, air, fire, water and spirit, to be placed on grave markers within 14 days for those who have pending requests with the VA.

Barry Lynn, director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the settlement in Circle Sanctuary v. Nicholson “a proud day for religious freedom in the United States.” But he noted that VA documents the plaintiffs' attorneys reviewed appeared to reveal that government officials had intentionally dragged their feet on approving the symbol for fear that it would upset religious conservatives.

“Many people have asked me why the federal government was so stubborn about recognizing the Wiccan symbol,” Lynn said. “I did not want to believe that bias toward Wiccans was the reason, but that appears to have been the case. That's discouraging, but I'm pleased we were able to put a stop to it.” He also noted, “This settlement has forced the Bush Administration into acknowledging that there are no second class religions in America, including among our nation's veterans.”

The American Civil Liberties Union said the agreement also settles a similar lawsuit it filed last year against the VA. In that case, the ACLU represented two other Wiccan churches and three individuals.

Eleven families nationwide are waiting for grave markers with the pentacle, said Selena Fox, a Wiccan high priestess with Circle Sanctuary in Barneveld, Wis., a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

“I am glad this has ended in success in time to get markers for Memorial Day,” Fox said.

The VA stated that they sought the settlement in the interest of the families involved and to save taxpayers the expense of further litigation. This according to VA spokesman Matt Burns. The agency also agreed to pay $225,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.

The pentacle has been added to 38 symbols the VA already permits on gravestones. They include commonly recognized symbols for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, as well as those for smaller religions such as Sufism Reoriented, Eckiankar and the Japanese faith Seicho-No-Ie.

VA-issued headstones, markers and plaques can be used in any cemetery, whether it is a national one such as Arlington or a private burial ground like that on Circle Sanctuary's property.

And just in case anyone hasn't picked up on it yet, Wiccans would probably like to once again remind people that Wicca is a nature-based religion based on respect for the earth, nature and the cycle of the seasons. Variations of the pentacle have long been used in horror movies as a sign of the devil, and is perhaps the primary reason many Americans wrongly associate Wicca and Paganism with Satan-worship.

- Watch Alert archived post

Americans Outraged by Squalor Surrounding Wounded Iraq Veterans

2007-03-04T11:15:00.000-05:00

Like most Americans, I've been shocked recently by reports of the conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. Like everyone else, I assumed that our veterans who are returning wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan were receiving the best care possible. After all, Walter Reed is a prestigious army hospital, and is supposed to be among the best hospitals in the country.

Do the paragraphs below, which I’ve culled from various media sources, sound like one of the best hospitals in the country?

“Staff Sergeant John Shannon, 43, whose eye and skull were shattered by a sniper in Ramadi, was sent to Walter Reed in November 2004. On arrival he was given a map of the grounds and told to make his own way to his room. Badly disoriented and barely able to see, he had to hold himself upright by sliding against the walls, asking anybody he could find for directions.”

“The Post reported that black mold was thick on the walls and that roaches ran rampant, except when they were pushed out of the way by rats and mice. The wounded soldiers, many of whom are wheelchair bound, had to make their own way a quarter, or half, mile up the street to the hospital for treatment.”

“Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding soldiers’ families who are close to poverty, replacing a uniform ripped off by medics in the desert sand or helping a brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment.”

“On the worst days, soldiers say they feel like they are living a chapter of “Catch-22.” The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.”

According to Diane Benson, mother of Latseen Benson, 27, who was recovering from a double amputation at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, her son met a parade of VIPs. Every time the President, the Vice-President or the Defense Secretary passed by, the military hospital would be thoroughly scrubbed. But the improvements wouldn’t last long.

“I wasn’t so bothered by the rats, although there were a lot running around outside, but I really wanted his room to be swept and kept clean,” she said. “You couldn’t get people to mop the blood and urine from the floor while my son was there with his legs wide open.”

Like many Americans, I keep asking one simple question. How could this have happened in the United States of America? Doesn’t President Bush stand up there almost on a daily basis and try to excoriate anyone who questions his handling of the war or how ill-equipped our soldiers are? Much less anyone who disagrees with the Iraq War itself. They’re dismissed as left-wing kooks who are undermining the morale of our people who are serving in the military. So wouldn’t you think that the Administration would be on top of this issue? If for no other reason than good PR?

The Bush Administration has been in full spin mode since news of the conditions of Walter Reed became public. President Bush said in his weekly radio broadcast on Saturday that he was appalled by the conditions at the prestigious army hospital, and announced an inquiry into veterans’ care.

“This is unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to the country and it’s not going to continue,” he said.

But it’s quite likely that the Bush Administration’s push for privatization may have helped create the Walter Reed disaster. Getting much less attention in the media are reports that a five-year, $120 million contract awarded to a firm run by a former executive from Halliburton (a multi-national corporation where Vice President Dick Cheney once served as CEO) will be probed at a Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs hearing scheduled for Monday.

A letter sent by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Major General George W. Weightman, the former commander at Walter Reed, asks him to “address the implications of a memorandum from Garrison Commander Peter Garibaldi sent through you to Colonel Daryl Spencer, the Assistant Chief of Staff for Resource Management with the U.S. Army Medical Command” in order to better prepare himself for his testimony at the hearing.

“This memorandum, which we understand was written in September 2006, describes how the Army’s decision to privatize support services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was causing an exodus of ‘highly skilled and experienced personnel,’” Waxman’s letter continues. “As a result, according to the memorandum, ‘WRAMC Base Operations and patient care services are at risk of mission failure.’”

“We have learned that in January 2006, Walter Reed awarded a five-year $120 million contract to a company called IAP Worldwide Services for base operations support services, including facilities management,” Waxman continues. “IAP is one of the companies that experienced problems delivering ice during the response to Hurricane Katrina.”

Before the contract, according to the memorandum, over 300 federal employees provided facilities management services at Walter Reed, but that number dropped to less than 60 the day before IAP took over.

“Yet instead of hiring additional personnel, IAP apparently replaced the remaining 60 federal employees with only 50 IAP personnel,” Waxman writes.

A year ago, the Government Accountability Office “dismissed a protest filed on behalf of employees at the Army’s Walter Reed Medical Center, ruling that the employee group had no standing to challenge the outcome of a public-private job competition initiated prior to January 2005,” GovExec.com reported.

One has to wonder why this aspect of this story has received so little attention. It seems to explain a lot, doesn’t it? The mainstream media has been obsessively reporting on the conditions in Walter Reed itself, and has been largely focused on which of the medical center’s administrators were being kicked to the curb, and which politicans have had what to say about the whole subject.

Fox News, always a world unto itself, hasn’t even gone that far. Instead, they’ve been reporting on more important issues. Anna Nicole.
Brittany’s hair. American Idol nudie pics. Al Gore’s perfidious hypocrisy. Obama’s connection to racist churches. Hillary’s connection to Satan.

Have you heard a peep of indignation from Bill O’Reilly against the Republican Congress who, for the last six years, not only stood by and allowed the Walter Reed debacle to happen, but actually conspired in the abomination? Not at all. He would rather spend a few hundred segments skewering Cindy Sheehan or David Letterman.

Has there be any mention that it was House Republicans who had ousted Conservative Republican Chris Smith as the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee when he sought higher funding for veterans services than the Bush Administration desired? Not when Rush Limbaugh was busy blaming anonymous Huffington Post commenters (not bloggers - but those who made their comments in the ope-to-anyone, including dittoheads, forums) for wishing the Vice President dead.

Standing in front of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Ann Coulter didn’t call Republicans to the floor for their years of undermining and under-funding veterans. She instead decided to make use of that time to call Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot”.

And the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, instead of trying to get to the bottom of this national embarrassment, spent most of his energy writing a column to expose Dana Priest (the Washington Post writer who, with Anne Hull, revealed the military’s dirty, rat infested secret) for having “an agenda”.

In short, the talking heads on The Right, both in the media and in the Republican Party, have instinctively attacked anyone who questioned who was responsible for the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Medical Center. After all, Republicans have been in-charge, and so the questioning of any aspect of this issue has been dismissed, of course, at nothing more than thinly-veiled, politically-motivated attacks.

The conservative politicians have rightly started back-pedaling. They see the writing on the wall. They realize that there’s no way they can use this issue to launch political attacks against Democrats. So they’re out there making their necessary speeches expressing their outrage and moral indignation over the conditions at Walter Reed, and demanding that someone be held accountable. Which, in Republican terms, means someone should be fired so we can all move on to more important things. Like Faith-Based Initiatives. Throwing the teaching of Evolution out of public schools. Making sure gays and lesbians can’t get married. Instead, they let the propaganda wing of the Republican Part (Fox News, Right-Wing talk shows) do the dirty work for them.

They don’t want us to look at this issue. They know that if Americans are aware of all the facts, the Republicans might very well suffer dearly for turning the care of our returning veterans over to a private company that “is led by Al Neffgen, a former senior Halliburton official who testified before our Committee in July 2004 in defense of Halliburton’s exorbitant charges for fuel delivery and troop support in Iraq.”

I think all Americans agree that something must be done at Walter Reed Medical Center, and immediately. But what I’ll be watching most closely in the coming weeks is whether all the rhetoric over this issue is turned into action, or if this all just goes away when Americans are distracted by some other shiney object and diversion.

That’s all the Republicans and their Right-Wing media arm are waiting for. If they can batten down the hatches, fire a few high level people, and just hang on, this issue will go away. IAP Worldwide Services can go back to its highly profitable business of providing inadequate health care for our returning veterans and supporting Republican candidates. And Republicans can keep mouthing off about how those godless Liberals and Democrats care less about America’s soldiers than the God-fearing Conservative high-steppers on the Right.

Personally, I think Walter Reed Medical Center is just another casualty in the “culture war” that Right-Wing Christians are so obsessed about. It’s another casualty in the Republicans’ war against American Democracy, as they seek to privatize our governmental institutions, and enrich corporations (by far their largest source of political contributions) to the detriment of public programs.

Walter Reed Medical Center is a good example of what’s going on in American culture in general, where corporations are taking over our very infrastructure and seeking ways to charge Americans a fee for their love of country and patriotism. In this most immediate example of this struggle, our veterans are suffering the most from the Republicans’ misguided experiment. I hope and pray that the American public will wake up from its daze, demand that more is done than just fire a few high profile administrators, and remember who is responsible for creating this mess in the first place.

In the interim, I simply pray that our soldiers returning wounded from combat can hang on long enough to be afforded the kind of care they so rightly deserve, that somewhere amid all the rhetoric and chest-beating, someone actually gets something done.

- Watch Alert archived post

A Harry Potter Witch Hunt

2006-11-06T09:36:00.000-05:00

A Harry Potter witch hunt
Mom who hasn't even read the books says they teach witchcraft
KAY MCSPADDEN
Special to the Observer

The suburbs of Atlanta are at the center of a witch hunt. Literally.

Laura Mallory, a former evangelical Christian missionary and mother of four, has been trying since September 2005 to have the Harry Potter books by author J.K. Rowling removed from all of the Gwinnett County public school libraries. Initially she argued that the books were inappropriate because of "evil themes, witchcraft, demonic activity, murder, evil blood sacrifice, spells, and teaching children all of this," but she later added that they promote witchcraft, Wicca, and the occult.

Mallory's challenge was addressed by the media review committee at J.C. Magill Elementary, where three of Mallory's children are enrolled. The committee recommended that the books remain in the libraries, and the district administration concurred.

In April Mallory appealed to the district school board, which held a public hearing in May. The school board sided with the school media review committee and voted unanimously in favor of keeping the books.

Now Mallory has taken her challenge to the state Board of Education. They met in October and will issue a judgment in December.

In some ways this is a rather predictable book challenge.

Like many book complainants, Mallory objects that the contents of the books are offensive to her religious beliefs. She claims the books have an anti-Christian bias.

Also like many complainants, she admits she hasn't read the books.

"They're really very long and I have four kids," Mallory told the Gwinnett Daily Post. "I think it would be hypocritical of me to read all of the books, honestly. I don't agree with what's in them."

And also like many of the people who challenge books, Mallory ignores the role of parents in guiding their children's choices -- unless, of course, she is the parent making those choices for everyone's children.

The outcry against Mallory's challenge has been predictable as well. Supporters of the Harry Potter series have countered that the books do not promote witchcraft but are fantasy stories about gifted children who discover their own remarkable abilities and go to a special school in order to learn to use them. The books are intense morality tales where good triumphs over evil, where friendship and loyalty are celebrated, where Harry learns from his missteps.

Potter fans also point out that although Mallory charges that the books try to indoctrinate children into the religion of Wicca, the only religious reference is to Christianity, when Hogwarts adjourns each December for the Christmas holidays. Nor do the books teach occult practices, as Mallory claims. The magic taught at Hogwarts is a clever counterpart to real life activities -- learning to make the tip of a wand light up to use as a flashlight, for example, or learning the proper way to fly a broom. The only teacher who presumes to teach what might be called occult practices is Sybill Trelawney, the incompetent fortune teller who is roundly mocked by both her students and her colleagues.

As predictable as the challenge has been, it has also been surprising to me. Why are books this universally read and loved also so widely feared and reviled? Despite their lack of sexual content or offensive language -- two of the most common reasons for book challenges -- the Harry Potter books are listed as the American Library Association's most-challenged books of the 21st century. What's going on?

Laura Mallory told one interviewer that "the books expose and introduce occult practices to young readers, opening a door to their minds and hearts to this kind of stuff, the casting of spells. The occult is dangerous to our children, and we need to get it out of our schools in all its forms."

For Mallory and other people like her who have a pre-Enlightenment view of the world as a place where magic is real and supernatural powers can be accessed through spells, the books might seem frightening. These are the same people who send chain letters and e-mails which promise great rewards to those who say a prayer and forward the mail to others -- and which sometimes threaten harm if the chain is broken.

They are the people who read cosmic significance into coincidence, who believe without question the cautionary tales they hear, who reject reason and science as ungodly and substitute religion with superstition.

Ironically, they say that they worry that children cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction, but their own anxiety about the books suggests that they are the ones who are having difficulty. It's too bad that their confusion means the rest of us have to endure yet another senseless witch hunt.

Kay McSpadden

Observer columnist Kay McSpadden is a high school English teacher in York, S.C. Write her c/o The Observer, P.O. Box 30308, Charlotte, NC 28230-0308 or by e-mail at kmcspadden@comporium.net.

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

Catholics vs. Pagans in Glastonbury

2006-11-04T09:40:00.000-05:00

This is an article worth reading. It reminds us that however we like to think that things are changing, a lot stays the same.

- Wicasta

=======
Bad vibes in Glastonbury after Catholics against pagans
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

BY THE light of the full moon, witches in Glastonbury will tonight be casting a "circle of protection" around Britain's centre of mysticism after a group of militant Christians cast salt at them in an attempt to "cleanse" the town of paganism.

One Roman Catholic was fined and two cautioned by police after the "alternative Hallowe'en" festival in Britain's centre of magical mysticism turned into a spiritual battle between Christianity and paganism.

Now even the local Catholic priest has told his fellow Christians that they are not welcome in the town.

The Christians were visiting for the Lightswitch@glastonbury festival, the eighth such event organised by the Catholic charity Youth 2000. Promotional material tempted them there with slogans such as: "Has the light on your halo gone dark? Have your wings gone a bit grubby? Just want to switch your faith back on?"

Organised with the co-operation of the Catholic Parish Church and Shrine of Our Lady St Mary in Glastonbury, it was intended to be the Hallowe'en of choice "for those who have grown tired of tatty fancy dress and the Blair Witch Project".

But police were called after militants told locals that they wanted to cleanse the town of paganism, cast salt around to exorcise "evil" spirits and called one woman a "whore witch".

Yemaya Pinder, a witch and a member of the Pagan Federation who owns The Magick Box store, said that she believed the Christians should be prosecuted for a religious hate crime.

Mrs Pinder, a mother of two and grandmother of four, and whose sister is an Anglican vicar in Basildon, described how a group of Catholics had entered her shop and abused her.

She said: "It was as if we had returned to the dark ages. They told me they wanted to cleanse Glastonbury of paganism. They said they had lighters and were going to come back and burn us down. When the police asked them to apologise, they refused."

She said there were no plans to put a curse on the Christians. "But we are doing protection for ourselves and the shop and the town. We are working magic for the healing and the damage they very nearly did between us and the local Roman Catholic church."

She said that the town's witches had begun to work their magic, starting the protective circle on Samhein, the Celtic new year, last Tuesday, and planning to finish it using the "high energy" of tonight's full moon.

Dreow Bennett, the Archdruid of Glastonbury and leader of the pagan movement, said: "To call the behaviour of some of their members medieval would be an understatement. I witnessed a pagan being called a `bloody witch' and being told, `You will burn in hell'.

"Apparently this man was not a diligent follower of the teachings of Christ. It was my understanding that Christ taught compassion and tolerance rather than hatred and ignorance."

Father Kevin Knox-Lecky, the Catholic parish priest at Glastonbury, said: "I was utterly appalled by the disgraceful behaviour, language and threats that were apparently made to members of the local pagan community by a small fringe group that attached itself to the Youth 2000 retreat last weekend in Glastonbury." He said the militants were "unChristian and unrepresentative" of the majority of the 350 young people at the festival.

He had since met Mrs Pinder and Mr Bennett. The conversation ended in "mutual embrace". He said: "We have agreed to keep in touch with each other and to support each other in the event of negative attention from any extremists from whichever faith. I have frequently found evidence of rites performed on my church steps."

Youth 2000 is a registered charity which aims to forge links between young Catholics through retreats and events.

Charlie Connor, the managing director of Youth 2000, said that aiming "blessed salt" at pagans was in direct contravention of the spirit of Youth 2000. "For the avoidance of doubt, Youth 2000 does not condone or encourage this kind of behaviour from anyone. We fully agree that differences on matters of faith cannot and should not be resolved by any kind of harassment."

But he added: "Youth 2000 would also like to place on the record that many young people at the retreat were harassed, sworn at and even cursed by people. One incident included the taking of photographs of young people, including children, and numbers plates by people present in the town. They were forced to move on. Regrettably, Youth 2000 will not be running a festival in Glastonbury next year."

Avon and Somerset police said: "The neighbourhood beat manager was on patrol on Saturday and was alerted that there was an incident at the Magick Box shop. The officer arrested a man for a public order offence. He was later released after being issued with a fixed penalty notice. Two women were also given cautions and words of advice about their future behaviour."

A SPIRITUAL BATTLE . . . WITH A LARGE PINCH OF SALT

- Glastonbury has become well known as the venue of one of the world's most popular music festivals but its mystical roots go back much further

- Some believe it was the site of Avalon, the final resting place of King Arthur

- Salt, the origin of the word "salvation", has an important place in many of the world's religions

- Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting The Last Supper shows Judas Iscariot spilling a bowl of salt, seen as an omen of evil and bad luck

- Some Christians still believe that they should throw it over their shoulder to ward off devils that may be lurking behind them

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

John Kerry vs. Assorted Right-Wing Nutjobs

2006-10-31T19:32:00.000-05:00

What a bunch of maggots Fox News and the Republicans are. In an effort to further prove that they are fair and balanced, Fox News posted this headline; “Kerry Reloads in Dogfight Over Snipe at Troops in Iraq”

Problem is, John Kerry's recent comments were aimed at President Bush. Not at the troops.

Hell, the Republicans, who are getting their asses handed to them in most polls and are in real danger of losing control of both branches of Congress, are scrambling to make something of nothing. Fox News is in the lead, as usual, but they're not out there alone.

So. Let's look at this. Here's what John Kerry said.

While campaigning in California, Kerry told a college crowd on Monday: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.” Like ... say ... George W. Bush?

The Republicans sounded a loud “Eureka!” believing they had at last stumbled across something that might effectively distract the American public from their party's moral depravity, their dismantling of American democracy, and the war profiteering of their rich corporate campaign donors. President Bush, who has been running around of late trying to remind Americans of what should be foremost on their minds when heading to the polls (keeping same-sex couples from getting married, for example), seized upon Kerry's comments immediately.

Said President Bush; “The senator's suggestion that the men and women of our military are somehow uneducated is insulting and shameful. The men and women who serve in our all-volunteer Armed Forces are plenty smart.”

True. The men and women of our Armed Forces are plenty smart. Unlike their President, who completely missed it that John Kerry's remarks were a jab at him, not the troops.

Not to miss an opportunity to kiss some Conservative ass and bolster his imminent 2008 Presidential bid, John McCain said; “The suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq is an insult to every soldier serving in combat.”

Now, I don't think John McCain is stupid or uneducated. I think he knew exactly what John Kerry meant. However, being a politician, he couldn't help but pile on when all his right-wing buddies were doing the same.

Uncharacteristically, John Kerry came back out swinging.

He said his remarks, which he conceded were part of a “botched joke,” had been distorted and called the criticism directed at him the work of “assorted right-wing nut jobs and right-wing talk show hosts.” He went on to say “It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country, lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have. If anyone thinks a veteran would criticise the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy.”

Dayum, brother. You tell 'em!

At a televised news conference today in Seattle, Mr. Kerry said he was “disgusted” by the Republican attacks, which he noted were coming at the end of a bloody month in Iraq. “Sadly, this is the best this administration can do,” he said.

He stepped it up today, issuing a fresh denunciation of the administration this evening as Bush was in Georgia. “Had George Bush and Dick Cheney been in combat one minute of their comfortable lives, they would never have sent American troops to war without body armor or without a plan to win the peace, and they wouldn't be exploiting our troops today,” the senator said. “No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut-and-run policy in Afghanistan and a stand-still-and-lose strategy in Iraq.” He accused Republicans of creating “straw men” because “they're afraid to debate real men.”

I have to admit that this skirmish tickled the hell out of me. I was glad to see a Democrat come out swinging. Typically, there has been a lot of hand-wringing in some Democratic circles, with some worrying that Kerry's remarks will hurt Democrats at the polls on Election Day. I doubt it. If anything, I think Americans will be glad to see a Democrat who has some balls for a change, instead of the snivelling candy-asses who are too afraid of making waves to make an effective stand. It's no wonder Democrats have generally lost the last couple of elections. It's rare for one to say what he or she means, or to take a stand without running opinion polls first.

Al Gore is a good example. How many people have been stunned at the man who we now know as Al Gore, who is steadfast in his opinions and willing to fight it out? Where was this man during the 2000 Presidential campaign? All of his friends and associates say that this is the real Al Gore; this passionate eco-warrior who is an energetic and charismatic man who makes a compelling case for the issues he believes in. Where was he in 2000?

He was supressed by the same hand-wringers who are so worried today that John Kerry's remarks will hurt the Democrats' chances on Election Day. I say if Kerry's remarks hurt the Democrats, it will be because his principled and defiant stand provides such stark contrast to the policy of appeasement that Democratic strategists prefer to pursue.

Finally. A Democrat with balls (sorry, Hillary, I don't mean that in the literal sense)!

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if John Kerry's recent passion (which was so sadly lacking in the 2004 Presidential campaign) was the rule among Democrats and not the exception?

- Watch Alert archived post

Pagan Movement Steps In To Help India's Witches

2006-10-13T14:50:00.000-04:00

Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:42 AM BST171
By Bappa Majumdar

KOLKATA (Reuters) - Followers of a global pagan witchcraft movement plan to introduce their beliefs in India to curb the persecution and killing of hundreds of witches every year. Witchcraft has been practised by women in rural, isolated communities in India for centuries but in recent years witches have become ostracised. Many have even been murdered by neighbours or family who blame them for doing the work of evil spirits.

In the past five years, police say they have reports of more than 700 women being killed as witches or witch doctors in eastern India alone. But the real figure could be many times higher, they say.

Now, followers of the Wicca faith from the United States, Britain and India plan to introduce their religion in the eastern city of Kolkata to promote awareness of witchcraft and provide support for harassed witches.

"People from different walks of life and even governments had asked me to institutionalise Wicca, but I was waiting for the right moment," Ipsita Roy Chakraverti, a prominent social activist who practices Wicca, told Reuters.

"Now is the time we stood up against people who persecute and kill innocent women," said Chakraverti, adding that the Indian "Wiccan Brigade" would also register complaints of persecution and coordinate with police to ensure cases were brought to trial.

Around 100 people have already signed up to take a training programme in Wiccan philosophy, literature and psychology and the students will also set up a grievance cell where persecuted women can register their complaints, she said.

Like many Pagan religions, Wicca practises magic and witches believe that the human mind has the power to effect change in ways that are not fully understood by science.

In their rituals, as well as honouring their deities, witches also perform spells for healing and to help people with general life problems.

In India, many witches practise the Dakini Vidya form of witchcraft, where women invoke the Mother Goddess to draw spiritual strength, a belief which has similarities to the Wicca faith in a Great Mother.

In remote India, where literacy is low and lives are governed by superstition, villagers often persecute witches and blame them for natural disasters or for illness, death or theft in a village.

"They cannot afford medicines for ailments and often put the blame squarely on innocent women and later kill them," said Chakraverti, who studied the Wiccan faith at a chalet in Canada's Laurentian mountains.

Chakraverti has also written two books on Wicca -- one of which, The Sacred Evil, was adapted for the big screen earlier this year.

witchcraft across the world is experiencing a renaissance of sorts after centuries of bad press, led by television characters such as Buffy, Sabrina and the ladies from Charmed.

Internet sites have also encouraged pagans -- worshipping as wiccas, druids, or shamans -- to come out of the broom closet.

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

NSA Wiretaps Ruled Illegal

2006-08-19T10:25:00.000-04:00

The Bush Administration's war against the American people took another blow Thursday when a Federal judge, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Detroit, ruled that the NSA's warrantless surveillance of American citizens is un-Constitutional. Republicans are aghast that a terrorist sympathizer could have wound up on a Federal bench without anyone realizing it. Okay, so they haven't gone that far yet. But they're beginning to ramp up the tired old “activist judges” argument. They haven't come right out and called Taylor that just yet, but they're already pointing out that she was appointed by President Jimmy Carter (a godless Democrat if they've ever seen one), as if that's all the damning evidence that's needed.

“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” Taylor said in finding that the administration's wiretapping violates an array of constitutional rights and a 1978 law requiring court warrants for electronic surveillance related to terrorism or espionage. She granted the American Civil Liberties Union's request for a nationwide injunction halting the surveillance (which President Bush secretly authorized shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks). The president acknowledged the program's existence only after it was disclosed by the New York Times in December.

Bush said he had ordered the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and e-mails between Americans and suspected members and supporters of al Qaeda overseas. The president claimed authority under his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, but most specifically under a post-Sept. 11 congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in Afghanistan -- an assertion that Taylor said was unfounded.

“It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” Taylor wrote in the decision. “The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another.”

The government argued that the program is well within the president’s authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets. Well, that should make us all feel better, right? I mean, it would compromise national security to prove to us that it's legal, so we'll just have to trust them. After all, it's not like they've done anything to make us mistrust them before, right?

The Justice Department said it is appealing the ruling. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, old “torture is legal” himself, said at a news conference in Washington, “We’re going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue,” and “We’ve had numerous statements by leaders of the intelligence community about the effectiveness of the program in protecting America.”

Catch phrase alert; “protecting America.” Well, no one is debating the effectiveness of the program. I'm sure it's mighty convenient for the government to be able to listen in on whomever it pleases whenever it pleases, without having to go through the bother of securing a warrant or explain to anyone why they want to listen in on us. Surely somewhere within the millions of phone calls the government monitors, something suspicious is bound to show up. If it does, by God, they'll catch it, and they'll continue to protect America.

What is being debated here is the legality and Constitutionality of the program, not the effectiveness of the program. That's what's inconveniencing the NSA, the Justice Department and the Bush Administration here. Quaint ideas like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration “couldn’t disagree more with this ruling. The program is carefully administered and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist.”

My question here is this; who exactly is carefully administering this program? The Bush Administration has thumbed its nose at Congressional oversight, and has, besides, largely enjoyed a rumber-stamping of everything it has wanted to do by a Republican controlled Congress. Does this mean that the NSA is over-seeing itself? You know. That is literally what he's saying. The only oversight Congress has exercised is in the fact that they were aware of the program.

Oh, wait. I get it. We're back to the “trust us” argument. They wouldn't do anything wrong.

The basic problem in Snow's statement is the whole redirection thing again. The gist of it is the phrase “suspected al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist.” See, that makes it sounds like they're only listening in on Osama and his buddies, not Americans citizens in general. Yet the NSA cannot, and will not, explain its database of millions of phone numbers. Ooops! That's embarassing.

This gets down the very core of this argument. Without warrants, the NSA doesn't even need to have probable cause to listen in to your phone calls. If they decide you are “a person of interest,” for whatever reason, King George has already given them permission to monitor everything you do or say. The issue here is whether or not the President has the Constitutional authority to do that.

“Those who herald this decision simply do not understand the world we live in,” President Bush said (apparently without illiciting laughter). Bush should be commended that he could say this with a straight face, since, well, we're talking about the boy king here.

Again, we come back to the “trust us” argument. We simple citizens couldn't possibly understand the complexities of the world we live in. So we should just allow King George and his Neo-Conservative buddies to do as they please. Besides, I'm sure that later we can launder the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and probably even get out the stains once they're finished wiping their butts with them.

“This country is at war,” Bush said (ever notice he reminds us of that whenever we question him on anything?). “We must give those whose job it is to protect us the tools they need. I strongly disagree with the decision. I believe our appeal will be upheld. The American people expect us to protect them so I put this program in place. If Al Quaeda is calling into the United States we want to know what it is saying.”

Well, I think we all would like to know what Al Quaeda is up to.

“No one is against wiretapping suspected terrorists,” Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said. “The question is how to bring this program within the law.”

Republican leaders, meanwhile, urged the White House to fight for the program in court. And no doubt they're prepared to use every catch phrase at their disposal to do so.

“Terrorists are the real threat to our constitutional and democratic freedoms, not the law-enforcement and intelligence tools used to keep America safe,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said in a statement. “We need to strengthen, not weaken, our ability to foil terrorist plots before they can do us harm.”

After all, we are a nation at war. They're protecting America. They're targeting Al Quaeda and affiliated terrorists. Us ungrateful wretches should be ashamed of ourselves for denying them the tools they need to fight terrorists and protect America at a time when we're a nation at war. You know. Tools such as warrantless wiretaps that ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and support the un-checked power-grab of the executive branch.

The ACLU said the Taylor decision should force congressional action, but it fears that such action will only make the situation worse.

“Congress needs to do its job and stop the president from violating the law,” they said. “The White House has stonewalled congressional attempts to investigate the administration’s circumvention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. President George W. Bush personally blocked a Department of Justice investigation regarding the NSA’s warrantless-wiretapping program. Although Congress lacks a full understanding of the facts, several bills have been introduced that would reward the government’s illegal actions by changing the law to legitimize the program.”

Maybe we should just make Bush king. After all, this is the man who said “If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier -- just as long as I'm the dictator.”

- Watch Alert archived post

U.S. Military Casualties for July, 2006

2006-08-02T08:39:00.000-04:00

It's occurred to me that you just don't hear much about U.S. military casualties anymore. I mean, I keep up with it and I'm sure a lot of Americans do, but the media doesn't, really. I seem to recall that one of the big networks has a segment on one of their news programs called Faces of the Fallen, which features a different soldier every night. But my impression of that effort has always been that the music and delivery are too upbeat, and the presentation doesn't reflect the tragedy of a human life ending.

What you find in the general media are the numbers. The problem is, those numbers are an abstract idea. They can be horrifying if you take the time to think about them, but few of us do. 2,567 members of the U.S. military killed since the beginning of the Iraq War, 2,027 of those by hostile action. 18,988 wounded. See what I mean? It's hard to wrap our brains around how man people those numbers represent.

Well, I was looking at a list of the casualties for July, and I was just overwhelmed. So I thought I would post the casualty list that I was looking at, and then try to make a point about how desensitized Americans have become to the endless recitation of abstract numbers.

I implore you to read each and every name and description. It's the least we can do as Americans to honor their sacrifices.

July 21: Army Cpl. Matthew P. Wallace, 22, Lexington Park, Md., died in Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries sustained July 16 when his vehicle hit an explosive in Baghdad; assigned to the Army's 10th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

•Marine Capt. Christopher T. Pate, 29, Hampstead, N.C.; killed in Anbar province; assigned to 2nd Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company, Command Element, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

July 20: Army Pfc. Derek J. Plowman, 20, Everton, Ark.; died in Baghdad from a gun shot wound; assigned to the Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 142nd Fires Brigade, Rogers, Ark.

•Marine Cpl. Julian A. Ramon, 22, Flushing, N.Y.; was killed in Anbar province; assigned to 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

July 18: Marine Lance Cpl. Geofrey R. Cayer, 20, Fitchburg, Mass.; died in Anbar province of a non-hostile incident; assigned to 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

•Army Sgt. Mark R. Vecchione, 25, Tucson; died Tuesday in Ramadi when an explosive detonated near his vehicle; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 37th Armor Regiment, 1st Armored Division, Friedberg, Germany.

July 17: Army Cpl. Nathaniel S. Baughman, 23, Monticello, Ind.; died in Bayji when his vehicle was hit by grenades; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Ky.

•Army Staff Sgt. Michael A. Dickinson II, 26, Battle Creek, Mich.; died in Ramadi when his patrol was hit by small arms fire; assigned to the 9th Psychological Operations Battalion, 4th Psychological Operations Group, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, N.C.

•Army Cpl. Kenneth I. Pugh, 39, Houston; died in Baghdad when his vehicle was hit by small arms fire; assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

•Army Sgt. 1st Class Scott R. Smith, 34, Punxsutawney, Pa.; died Monday in Iskandariyah from an explosive; assigned to the 737th Explosive Ordnance Detachment, 52nd Ordnance Group, Fort Belvoir, Va.

July 16: Army Staff Sgt. Jason M. Evey, 29, Stockton, Calif.; died when his vehicle was hit by an explosive in Baghdad; assigned to the 1st Squadron, 10th Calvary Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, Fort Hood, Texas.

July 15: Army Sgt. Andres J. Contreras, 23, Huntington Park, Calif.; died when his vehicle was hit by an explosive in Baghdad; assigned to the 519th Military Police Battalion, 1st Combat Support Brigade, Fort Polk, La.

•Army Spc. Manuel J. Holguin, 21, Woodlake, Calif.; died Saturday in Baghdad when his patrol was hit by small arms fire and an explosive; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany.

July 14: Army Sgt. Thomas B. Turner Jr., 31, Cottonwood, Calif.; died at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries from July 13 when an explosive detonated near his vehicle in Muqdadiyah; assigned to the 1st Squadron, 32nd Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, Ky.

July 13: Army Sgt. Alkaila T. Floyd, 23, Grand Rapids, Mich.; died in Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Landstuhl, Germany, of injuries from an explosive on July 8 in Ramadi; assigned to the 54th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade, Bamberg, Germany.

July 12: Army Sgt. Irving Hernandez Jr., 28, New York; died in Mosul from small arms fire; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

•Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Jerry A. Tharp, 44, Muscatine, Iowa; died when his vehicle was struck by an explosive in Anbar province; assigned to Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 25, Rock Island, Ill.

July 10: Army Sgt. Duane J. Dreasky, 31, Novi, Mich.; died at the Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, of injuries from an explosive detonated near his vehicle in Habbaniyah on Nov. 21; assigned to the National Guard's 1st Battalion, 119th Field Artillery, Lansing, Mich.

July 9: Army Spc. Damien M. Montoya, 21, Holbrook, Ariz.; died in Baghdad from a non-hostile incident; assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

July 8: Army Staff Sgt. Omar D. Flores, 27, Mission, Texas; Army Spc. Troy C. Linden, 22, Detroit Lakes, Minn.; and Army Spc. Joseph P. Micks, 22, Rapid River, Mich. were killed in Ramadi from an explosive near their vehicle; assigned to the 54th Engineer Battalion, 130th Engineer Brigade, Warner Barracks, Bamberg, Germany.

July 3: Army Staff Sgt. Paul S. Pabla, 23, Fort Wayne, Ind.; died in Mosul from small arms fire; assigned to the National Guard's 139th Field Artillery, Kempton, Ind.

July 2: Army Pfc. Collin T. Mason, 20, New York; killed by indirect fire while manning a checkpoint in his vehicle in Taji; assigned to the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

•Marine Sgt. Justin L. Noyes, 23, Vinita, Okla.; died in Anbar province; assigned to 9th Engineer Support Battalion, 3rd Marine Logistics Group, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan.

July 1: Air Force Airman 1st Class Carl Jerome Ware Jr., 22, Smyrna, Del.; died from a non-hostile incident at Camp Bucca; assigned to the 15th Security Forces Squadron, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii.

Conservatives will be quick to point out that some of the deaths listed above did not occur in combat. That's the kind of sick f**ks they are, that a human life means less to them if they can't use it for their political purposes. It's the same thing as the U.S. military spinning the numbers so that the casualties don't seem so bad. Oh, sure, we've had over 2,500 killed. They openly discuss that. What they don't say much about is the over 18,000 that have been wounded.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that the list above seems rather overwhelming when you look at how many names are on it, and reflect that each one of those names was a living, breathing human being. Husbands. Fathers. Sons. Living, vibrant people, with lives and families.

Think about how large that list seems now, and reflect that these are only 26 soldiers. 26 of the 2,567 killed.

I hope you see my point.

- Watch Alert archived post
- U.S. Casualties database

Minimum Wage, Maximum Gall

2006-08-02T07:27:00.000-04:00

Here's an article by Harold Meyerson from the Washington Post, concerning the Republicans' latest sleight-of-hand. Essentially, the Republicans have decided to raise the minimum wage after fighting it tooth and nail for over a decade. Know why? They've finally realized that they're getting hammered over it. For some reason the poor people who would benefit from raising the minimum wage haven't been too happy with the Republicans for blocking that all these years. But in true Republican fashion, they used the occasion of raising the minimum wage to kick back more tax cuts to their rich buddies, and are hoping that the poor and the riff-raff will so grateful for their charity that they won't mind the rich getting richer (again).

The Republican party is beginning to seem like some evil force out of a Greek tradegy. How can any group of people be that morally bankrupt and yet still wrap themselves in the blanket of Christian values?

Anyway, Mr. Meyerson sums up the issue rather well.

Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid has taken to invoking Harry Truman's line about a “do-nothing Congress,” and with ample reason. In dealing with the major issues of our time (global warming, immigration, the diminishing benefits and stagnant wages that characterize today's economy) or in discharging its oversight duties over administration policies that have failed (the war in Iraq) or were stillborn (the rescue of New Orleans), the Republican-controlled Congress has been nowhere to be found. In inverse relation to the seriousness of the challenges that America confronts, this Congress is well on its way to spending the fewest days in session of any in modern memory.

Still, the one thing that should engender more fear than the current Congress's doing nothing is the current Congress's doing something. Every time congressional Republicans are compelled by public pressure to address a serious issue, they retreat to their laboratory and emerge with Frankenstein-monster legislation designed primarily to reward their campaign donors and stick it to the Democrats, and only secondarily to fix the problem. The Medicare drug program they crafted with the Bush White House enabled seniors to obtain some medications at a lower price, but it codified the continued upward spiral of drug prices by forbidding the government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies -- a linchpin of Republican campaign finance -- to bring prices down.

Now they're at it again. Facing pressure from Northeastern and Midwestern House Republicans fearful of losing their seats this November, the House leadership has at long last relented and crafted a bill, which passed the House at around 1:30 Saturday morning, to raise the hourly minimum wage from its current abysmal $5.15 to $7.25 in three separate stages over the next three years. A decade has passed since Congress last hiked the minimum wage, during which time it has managed in a series of votes to raise its own members' salaries by a cool $31,000. Democrats and labor were hammering the Republicans over this most double of standards; minimum-wage workers were showing up at the Republicans' district offices and on local TV newscasts to dramatize the disparity.

So Republicans had to respond, and they did so in their inimitable cynical fashion. Appended to the minimum wage hike that the vast majority of them opposed was a provision genuinely dear to their hearts: a cut in the estate tax that chiefly benefits the super-rich and that will reduce government revenue over the next decade, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by $753 billion. The shortfall could well lead to offsetting cuts in programs that benefit the same working poor that the minimum-wage increase would help. But who cares about the poor? The whole point of the exercise was to come up with a bill that might force some Democrats to vote for an estate tax cut they would otherwise oppose, and enable Republicans to claim they weren't really the Dickensian grotesques that many of them in fact are.

Which may be why the Republicans' midnight orations in favor of raising the wage bore minimal resemblance to, say, the Sermon on the Mount. Their tone was best captured by Tennessee Rep. Zach Wamp, a Mayberry Machiavelli if ever there was one, who could not restrain himself from telling House Democrats, “You have seen us really outfox you on this issue tonight.”

Wamp's taunt can serve as the credo for this entire Republican Congress, which legislates only when, and because, it can outfox the Democrats. It is the credo of the Bush administration as well, which views even its signature policy -- its war on terrorism -- as its foremost wedge issue against the Democrats. Combine this hyper-partisan ethos with a far-right ideology that sees no role for the government even as our corporate welfare state crumbles and our planet turns to toast, and you get a more do-nothing government than Harry Truman could have even imagined.

So the solutions for national problems get kicked downstairs. To date 23 states have passed minimum-wage standards higher than the feds' -- and none of them in statutes designed to subvert themselves or play gotcha with the opposition party. States have begun to enact universal health insurance plans, while cities are passing living-wage ordinances. And just this Monday, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tony Blair signed an agreement between the sovereign state of California and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to curb greenhouse gas emissions, promote clean fuels and fight global warming. “California will not wait for our federal government to take strong action on global warming,” said Schwarzenegger, who understands that for a Republican to win election in Democratic California, he has to be a down-the-line environmentalist.

In Washington, meanwhile, Republicans are desperate to hold power. Not to govern, mind you, just hold power.

By Harold Meyerson
meyersonh@washpost.com
Wednesday, August 2, 2006

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

The Enemy is A 15-Year-Old Girl

2006-07-27T01:08:00.000-04:00

I'm in love with a 15-year-old girl.

Now, before any of you yahoos snatch up your cellphones and call the police, you should consider what I have to say.

My love's name is Ava Lowery. She lives in Alabama, calls herself a peace activist, and for the past year or so has been producing short Flash animations on her web site at peacetakescourage.com. She's made over seventy animations, and most of them oppose President Bush and his Iraq War.

“I was just so mad about it,” she explains. “And the media are not showing the real images of the war, so I did a lot research and started my own website.”

Lately Ava Lowery has been receiving ugly comments and even death threats from the knuckle-dragger wing of the Republican Party. You know the types. If we disagree with you, we'll just shout you down. And if we can't shout you down, we'll demean you and call you names. And if that doesn't work we'll threaten your life.

What got it all started was one of Ava's latest animations. She submitted one titled “WWJD” to the monthly “contagious” contest that huffingtonpost.com is running. It's an open contest which ranks the number of viewes for each submission.

“WWJD”(“What Would Jesus Do,” if you don't know) features a soundtrack of a child singing “Jesus loves me, this I know” while picture after picture of wounded, bloody, or screaming Iraqi children fills the screen.

Says Ava, “The object of the animation is to get this point across; Jesus loves Iraqi children, too.”

Ava ends the video with quotations from Beatitudes. These include “Blessed are they who mourn” and “Blessed are the meek” and “Blessed are the merciful” and “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Oddly enough, this didn't go over very well with the knuckle-draggers. Ava says she's received a lot of positive feedback in messages to her web site. But she was not prepared for the viciousness of the negative feedback that she received - especially the ugly sexual slurs.

If you can't stand foul language, this is your stopping point. Beyond this paragraph there be Republicans ...

Among some of the things that apparently adult Republicans / Conservatives have had to say to Ava ...

“It’s people like you who need to fucking die and get raped while your corpse rots in the sun.” You know, I'm sure that tactic is in the Bible somewhere. And I'm not entirely sure I'm joking.

“Fuck you, I would jack off on your parents if I could. If you don’t like the team, get out of the park. That means take ur small dick and get the fuck off of my homeland you faggot chocolate gulper.” Apparently this person missed the fact that Ava is a girl, so at least the small dick part is accurate. But generally, it seems that with Republicans if you disagree with them, you must have a small dick. I also liked the part about "my homeland." Who knew this one asshole had somehow taken possession of the entire United States? And what's a chocolate gulper? Wait, I don't want to know.

“You are a TRAITOR to your country and should be executed for treason,” another one said. “All you do is bitch about the US. If you hate it so much, why don’t you GET THE FUCK OUT.”

“Why don’t you go masterbate [sic] to a pic of Sheehan and fuck off,” said a third.

“Are you a muslem [sic] terrorist?” asked another.

Ava says there was a threat against her that was circulating “on the conservative underground.” She says she received one e-mail from someone who said, “Contact me ASAP. It concerns a danger to your life.”

When her mom called the number, the person who answered denied any knowledge of the threat, Lowery says.

She adds: “I was really weirded out by it.”

Geez. What can I really add to what has been posted above? Doesn't that pretty much sum it up?

My God. Are these my countrymen? Are these Christians? They're apparently Conservatives or they wouldn't take such intense offense at a 15-year-old girl disagreeing with their viewpoints. After all, with Republicans it's all about God and Country, and apparently masturbating upon the bombs before we drop them (the do talk about masturbation a lot, don't they?). I haven't been monitoring the Conservative misinformation dissemination centers lately, but I'm sure knuckle-draggers like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity have had a few snarky comments about Ava Lowery. It'd be about their speed to take on a young girl.

The greatest, most heart-felt pain that I've felt over this has been the absolute lack of support that Ava Lowery has received from Republican political leaders. Not one Republican, not one Christian leader, not one Conservative, has stepped forward and said publically that Ava Lowery has a right to express her beliefs, and that grown men and women should fall down upon their knees and beg God for forgiveness for the things that they have said to her and threatened to do to her and her family. That says to me that these people tacitly approve of these intimidation tactics. It underscores what I've known for sometime; that most Republicans are not fit for office. Hell, most Republicans are not fit for citizenship.

These knuckle-draggers are of the opinion that this is their homeland? I beg to differ. You fucking asshole. When you can threaten a 15-year-old girl and tell her that she should be raped and murdered and her body left in the sun to rot, you truly have no concept of what it means to be an American or what this country is all about. What gives you the unimaginable gall to dishonor the sweat, blood and sacrifice of my forefathers, who gave their lives to ensure that their children, grandchildren, and their grandchildren's grandchildren could live their lives in freedom ... what gives you the right to draw your foul breath and dare to call yourself an American?

Shine your jackboots, Adolf. Slide that armband on. Practice your high-stepping marches. But I will tell you this, you mindless thugs. When you dare come for my dear Ava, I and many others like me will be waiting for you. And then we will, perhaps, be able to determine, once and for all, just whose homeland this is. You will not find us such an easy target.

If you so despise freedom and the freedom of expression, then you are certainly in the wrong country. All I have to say to you is don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. Here, let me show you the way.

Ava Lowery is a patriot in the truest sense of the word. She clearly loves her country. And she is clearly not going to back down from the bullying of a bunch of mindless knuckle-dragging brutes. I'm not a 15-year-old girl. I warmly invite you maggots to come try your hand with me.

- Watch Alert archived post
- Peace Takes Courage

Panel slams Bush for law challenges

2006-07-26T23:42:00.000-04:00

While roaming the Internet I came across a story by Michael Abramowitz, of the Washington Post. It was quite an interesting article, and I've quoted liberally from it below.

It seems King George is thumbing his nose at the American people and quaint little ideas such as the Constitution yet again. A bipartisan panel of legal scholars and lawyers, who were brought together by the American Bar Association, has strongly criticized President Bush for his use of “signing statements,” which he uses as a means of ignoring, or simply not enforcing, laws pass by Congress that he and his buddies find ... well, inconvenient.

In a report issued on July 24, 2006, the ABA task force stated that President Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined. The panel described the development as a serious threat to the Constitution's system of checks and balances, and urged Congress to pass legislation permitting court review of these “signing statements.”

According to ABA President Michael Greco, a Massachusetts attorney, “The president is indicating that he will not either enforce part or the entirety of congressional bills - we will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the president's use of signing statements, is left unchecked.”

The report is probably going to anger a lot of King George's buddies, fueling the controversy over signing statements, which President Bush has used to challenge laws ranging from a congressional ban on torture and a request for data on the Patriot Act, to whistle-blower protections and the banning of U.S. troops in fighting rebels in Colombia.

Naturally, Adminstration officials describe these signing statements as a part of a routine presidential practice. Nothing to worry about. You Constitutional alarmist can go back to your tofu and lattes.

“Presidents have issued signing statements since the early days of our country,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said on Sunday; probably while stifling a yawn over yet another silly Constitutional non-issue. “... He is exercising a legitimate power in a legitimate way.”

Funny how they use the word “legitimate,” isn't it?

President Bush vetoed his first bill last week (and Mama Bush was so proud of him). It was a measure approved by Congress which would relax his limits on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Bush basically said, “Aw, hell no, you didn't.” But he has on many occasions signed bills, then issued statements reserving the right not to enforce or execute parts of the new laws, on the grounds that they infringe on presidential authority or violate other constitutional provisions.

Surprisingly (snark), the Justice Department has determined that the rarity of Bush's approach is a matter of some dispute. They said that President Bush has issued 110 signing statements, compared with President Bill Clinton's 80.

The ABA task force, chaired by prominent Miami attorney Neil Sonnett, disagrees, and cites research that President Bush in his signing statements has collectively lodged more than 800 challenges to provisions of laws passed by Congress.

No doubt the debate and spin will continue. The report will be considered by the full ABA at its meeting next month.

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

Rove, Novak: Have You No Decency?

2006-07-13T08:26:00.000-04:00

Amen, Brother!

Nicholas F. Benton
Falls Church News-Press

At last the Prince of Darkness has spoken. Columnist Robert Novak has come forward with a tardy confession of his collusion with the highest levels of the White House — namely Karl Rove, himself — in an unprecedented bit of nastiness that perfectly conforms with everything else we know about both. Rove leaked. Novak wrote, and a covert CIA operation was blown. And for what? To exact revenge.

The Rove-Novak connection is like a perfect maelstrom of deceit in the arena of public policy. The despicably immoral operative in the White House teams with the equally contemptible partisan disguised as a journalist in a nefarious scheme to punish a political enemy. These two thought nothing of the consequences of their devil’s compact in terms of how it compromised vital U.S. national security interests, critical covert operations and potentially the lives of undercover CIA agents.

It tells you not only how far things have descended in the most hallowed corridors of power in the land, but in the world of the Fourth Estate, as well. The slimy Novak paid no price among his journalistic peers for being the media outlet that blew Valerie Plame’s cover, and for covering up his source for over two years, despite the spectacular deceit that was so clearly involved.

The fact that such dogs retain any modicum of respect among allegedly civil circles that pretend to lead our nation is a sorry commentary on this entire fool’s paradise. The government and the media may have an unwritten agreement in Washington to artificially prop up each other’s respectability, but beneath that veneer is something so putrid that it is hard to determine if it is the idea of the contemptible behavior, or the outright stink of it, that is nauseating.

There is nothing in the core DNA of a Robert Novak type that knows of the notion of virtue, as is also the case of a Karl Rove or a Tom DeLay. These are the kind of people that have no actual talent, except as thugs. Novak has perfected his role as a partisan water boy disguised as a journalist. Rove and DeLay epitomize the type of person who would be a homeless drunk if it weren’t for the fact that politics, like used car sales, offers a career for the brutish hack with no refined skills.

A moment to clarify the record: You read in this column for months prior to the invasion of Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction there. This column was spot-on right about that, based on solid evidence, and everyone who disagreed was wrong. Many people did not believe those weapons were there, and with good reasons. They were right. Everyone else was wrong.

You read in this column two years ago that Karl Rove was the source of the leak to Robert Novak on Valerie Plame. Now, this week comes the news that this column was right, and everyone who disagreed was wrong. This column’s assertion was not a guess. It was based on solid combined inductive and deductive thinking, the kind of skill that journalists cultivate to guide their search for information and truth behind public lies.

I’d say it is now a matter of open, public record that I’m two-for-two on two of the most important inflection points in the Bush administration’s treachery, as well as on a number of other things.

The tragedy that has been unleashed in Iraq today is the saddest testament of all to the world-historic fiasco that is everything this Bush administration represents. Civil war is in full force, with marauding death squads now roaming through the nation’s capital killing randomly.

Who do the Iraqi people, and a world now truly unsafe from the terrorist incubator created in Iraq by the U.S. invasion, have to blame for this descent into hell?

Who are they to blame? Bush, Rove, Novak, DeLay, or William Kristol of the neo-conversative Project for a New American Century’s Weekly Standard magazine who now stands back, washing its hands of culpibility, and lamenting what’s become of it all? Or should they blame all the rest who stood by silently and compliantly, obsessed with the Washington game of being included over anything remotely resembling honor, valor, an overriding commitment to truth, or that old Renaissance notion of virtue?

The Rove-Novak case calls forth the famous condemnation of Sen. Joseph McCarthy at the Army-McCarthy hearing in April 1954, when the Army’s attorney general Joseph Welsh, after discrediting groundless allegations by McCarthy against a soldier in front of a national television audience, exclaimed to McCarthy, “Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

Fallen Soldier Gets a Bronze Star but No Pagan Star

2006-07-04T21:37:00.000-04:00

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 4, 2006

At the Veterans Memorial Cemetery in the small town of Fernley, Nev., there is a wall of brass plaques for local heroes. But one space is blank. There is no memorial for Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart.

That's because Stewart was a Wiccan, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has refused to allow a symbol of the Wicca religion -- a five-pointed star within a circle, called a pentacle -- to be inscribed on U.S. military memorials or grave markers.

The department has approved the symbols of 38 other faiths; about half of are versions of the Christian cross. It also allows the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim crescent, the Buddhist wheel, the Mormon angel, the nine-pointed star of Bahai and something that looks like an atomic symbol for atheists.

Stewart, 34, is believed to be the first Wiccan killed in combat. He was serving in the Nevada National Guard when the helicopter in which he was riding was shot down in Afghanistan last September. He previously had served in the Army in Korea and Operation Desert Storm. He was posthumously awarded a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star.

His widow, Roberta Stewart, scattered his ashes in the hills above Reno and would like him to have a permanent memorial.

She said the veterans cemetery in Fernley offered to install a plaque with his name and no religious symbol. She refused.

“Once they do that, they'll forget me. They don't like having a hole in the wall,” she said. “I feel very strongly that my husband fought for the Constitution of the United States, he was proud of his spirituality and of being a Wiccan, and he was proud of being an American.”

Wicca is one of the fastest-growing faiths in the country. Its adherents have increased almost 17-fold from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001, according to the American Religious Identification Survey. The Pentagon says that more than 1,800 Wiccans are on active duty in the armed forces.

Wiccans still suffer, however, from the misconception that they are devil worshipers. Some Wiccans call themselves witches, pagans or neopagans. Most of their rituals revolve around the cycles of nature, such as equinoxes and phases of the moon. Wiccans often pick and choose among religious traditions, blending belief in reincarnation and feminine gods with ritual dancing, chanting and herbal medicine.

Federal courts have recognized Wicca as a religion since 1986. Prisons across the country treat it as a legitimate faith, as do the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. military, which allows Wiccan ceremonies on its bases.

“My husband's dog tags said ‘Wiccan’ on them,” Stewart noted.

But applications from Wiccan groups and individuals to VA for use of the pentacle on grave markers have been pending for nine years, during which time the symbols of 11 other faiths have been approved.

Department spokeswoman Josephine Schuda said VA turned down Wiccans in the past because religious groups used to be required to list a headquarters or central authority, which Wicca does not have. But that requirement was eliminated last year, she noted.

“I really have no idea why it has taken so long” for the Wiccan symbol to gain approval, Schuda said.

The department declined repeated requests from The Washington Post to speak to higher-ranking officials about the issue.

Retired Army Chaplain William Chrystal, a United Church of Christ minister who was chaplain of Stewart's National Guard unit, has strongly backed Roberta Stewart's request.

“It's such a clear First Amendment issue, I can't even conceive of why they are not granting it, except for political reasons,” he said. “I think the powers that be are afraid they'll alienate conservative Christians if they approve a symbol that connotes witches and warlocks casting spells and brewing potions.”

Nevada's congressional delegation, including Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D), also has supported Roberta Stewart.

But letters printed by Nevada newspapers indicate how much hostility Wiccans face. “I don't see how anything that supports witchcraft and satanism can legitimately be called a religion,” one reader wrote to the Reno Gazette-Journal.

Stewart said that she is trying to educate people about Wicca, as well as to fulfill her husband's wishes. “Until he is laid to rest,” she said, “I cannot rest.”

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

A Chilling Example of Republican Thought

2006-06-16T11:09:00.000-04:00

From Think Progress;

On Thursday, the House of Representatives will hold a debate on the Iraq war. Media reports say Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) “hopes to match the serious, dignified tone of deliberation that preceded the Gulf war, in 1991.”

ThinkProgress has obtained a “Confidential Messaging Memo” from Boehner instructing his caucus to conduct a very different kind of deliberation. Here's a quick summary:

1. Exploit 9/11. The two page memo mentions 9/11 seven times. It describes debating Iraq in the context of 9/11 as “imperative.”

2. Attack opponents ad hominem. The memo describes those who opposes President Bush's policies in Iraq as “sheepish,” “weak,” and “prone to waver endlessly.”

3. Create a false choice. The memo says the decision is between supporting President Bush's policies and hoping terrorist threats will “fade away on their own.”

The full text of the memo follows.

To: House Republican Members

From: House Majority Leader John A. Boehner

Date: June 13, 2006

Re: Confidential Messaging Memo – Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War on Terror

This week, the House of Representatives will engage in a debate about the war in Iraq, the Global War on Terror and our efforts to strengthen our national security in a post-9/11 world.

The past week has brought news of several important, positive developments in Iraq and the Global War on Terror:

– U.S. military forces eliminated the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's top commander in Iraq and a cold-blooded killer.

– The Iraqi government named new interior, defense and security ministers as part of the new government's continued progress.

– Just this morning, President George W. Bush traveled to Baghdad to meet the newly appointed Prime Minster of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki and to discuss our growing partnership with the new democratic ally.

Clearly, these positive developments are the result of steadfast support of both our military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and across the globe. We should not refrain from touting such progress

During this debate, our Republican Conference should be focused on delivering these key points:

The Importance of Our Actions

It is imperative during this debate that we re-examine the conditions that required the United States to take military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world. We can no longer expect oceans between us and our enemies to keep us safe. The plotting and planning taking place in terror camps protected by rogue regimes could no longer go unchecked or unchallenged. In a post-9/11 world, we could no longer allow despots and dictators like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council.

So, during this debate we must make clear to the American people that the United States had to take action in the best interests of the security of our nation and the world community. As Republicans who supported military action against Saddam Hussein and terrorists around the globe, the United States had to show our resolve as the world's premier defender of freedom and liberty before such ideals were preyed upon, rather than after standing witness to their demise at the hands of our enemies.

As President John F. Kennedy once stated so eloquently:

"The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."

A Portrait of Contrasts

This debate in the House of Representatives gives our Republican Conference the opportunity to present the American people our case for strong national security policies whose purpose is to protect the nation against another attack on our own soil.

Similarly, we must conduct this debate as a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats with regard to one of the most important political issues of our era. Articulating and advocating our core principles will allow the American public to witness Members of Congress debate a fundamental question facing America's leaders:

In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and the threat of terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we instead abandon our efforts against these threats in the hopes that they will just fade away on their own?

Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol Hill Democrats' only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the threat of terrorism and the danger it poses.

These are troubling policies to embrace in a post-9/11 world. During this debate, we need to clarify just how wrong the Democrats' weak approach is and just how dangerous their implementation would be to both the short-term and long-term national security interests of the United States.

Resolve Will Triumph Over Retreat

As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post- 9/11 world.

Let there be no doubt that America and its allies in the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism face difficult challenges. The American people are understandably concerned about our mission in a post-Saddam Iraq. There have been many tough days since Iraq's liberation and transition to a sovereign democracy.

Democrats are all too eager to seize upon the challenges we face as their rationale or motivation for retreat. As Republicans, we understand the diplomatic and national security hazards of such a move. We must echo the American public's understanding of just how great the stakes are in Iraq and our long-term efforts to win the War on Terrorism.

Building democracies in a part of the world that has known nothing but tyranny and despotism is a difficult task. But achieving victory there and gaining democratic allies in the region will be the best gift of security we can give to future generations of Americans.

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

U.S. House Shoots Down Net Neutrality Provision

2006-06-09T20:09:00.000-04:00

There's not much I can add to the article that I've posted below.

The U.S. House of Representatives has defeated a provision to require U.S. broadband providers to offer the same speed of service to competitors that’s available to partners, a major defeat to a coalition of online companies and consumer groups.

The 269-152 House vote against the so-called net neutrality amendment late Thursday came after a last-minute push for the measure from many technology companies. After the House defeated the net neutrality amendment, it passed the underlying bill, a wide-ranging broadband bill focused partly on speeding the rollout of television over IP.

Without a net neutrality law, the Internet will turn into a two-tiered network in which the fastest speeds are reserved for content produced by the large broadband providers and companies that pay extra fees, net neutrality backers said. Customers who want to go to Web content from competing Internet companies will end up in a “slow lane,” net neutrality backers said.

“It is a shame that the House turned its back on the open essence of the Internet,” Gigi Sohn, president of consumer rights group Public Knowledge, said in an e-mail. “Instead, the House ... voted to allow the telephone and cable companies to discriminate by controlling the content that will flow over the network.”

The Senate is debating its own broadband and telecom reform bill, but the current version doesn’t include a net neutrality requirement. Lawmakers have introduced four standalone net neutrality bills, but the defeat in the House could mean the issue is dead until 2007.

Large broadband providers such as AT&T and Verizon Communications opposed a net neutrality law, saying it would bring unneeded regulation to the Internet. There’s little evidence of broadband providers blocking or impairing competing content, they said.

Executives with AT&T and BellSouth in recent months have also talked of new business plans that would allow them to charge Internet companies extra for faster speeds. Broadband providers need new ways of paying for the costs of building next-generation broadband networks, and charging large Internet companies makes the most sense, they said.

The Hands Off The Internet coalition, a group supported by AT&T and BellSouth, praised the House’s defeat of the net neutrality amendment, sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat. The amendment would have required broadband providers that set aside faster connections for new services such as video over IP to offer the same speeds to competing services.

“Bipartisan common sense won out over the bottom lines of a few big online companies,” Mike McCurry, co-chairman of the Hands Off The Internet coalition, said in a statement. “They would dramatically shift the cost of building tomorrow’s Internet onto the backs of consumers.”

The underlying broadband bill, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act, passed by a vote of 321-101. The bill would allow the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to investigate complaints about broadband providers blocking or impairing of Internet content only after the fact.

The bill would also streamline local franchising requirements for telecom carriers that want to offer IPTV services in competition with cable TV. The bill would in essence create a national franchise, allowing AT&T and Verizon to roll out their IPTV services without going through lengthy franchising negotiations with each local government where they want to provide service.

Verizon praised the House passage of the bill. It would bring “more choice, better services and lower price” to consumers, the company said. The company also cheered the defeat of the net neutrality provision, saying Congress “won’t go down the road of legislating solutions to problems that don’t exist.”

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, also calls for requiring voice-over-IP providers to offer customers enhanced 911 emergency dialing service, and allowing municipal governments to offer broadband data and video services. Verizon and other broadband carriers have opposed municipal broadband services.

Several tech and consumer groups engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign for a net neutrality provision. Members of TechNet, a trade group representing tech vendor senior executives, sent a letter to members of the House Thursday urging support for net neutrality. Among those signing the letter were executives with eBay, Microsoft, and the Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers venture capital firm.

Without net neutrality, small companies that can’t afford to pay extra broadband fees won’t be able to compete for customers, said John Doerr, a partner in the influential venture capital firm. “The telephone and cable giants want to be able to add a surcharge on,” he said Thursday. “We have to work hard to make sure there’s not that discrimination.”

-Grant Gross, IDG News Service (Washington Bureau)

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

Dixie Chicks vs. Country Lemmings

2006-05-28T11:13:00.000-04:00

I am not and never have been a fan of the Dixie Chicks. I've liked some of what they've done, but overall their music has never been my cup of tea. But I find myself rooting for their success with the release of their new album, Taking the Long Way. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other people feel the same way.

The Dixie Chicks have faced what a lot of Americans have faced, but have done so in a very public manner. By voicing their dissent in regard to the war in Iraq and condemning President Bush, they have all but been blacklisted in Country music. What success they have enjoyed since condeming President Bush and facing the incredible over-reaction by the Country music industry has come largely from Pop cross-overs. I hope that trend continues, because I would love to see the Dixie Chicks continue. If for no other reason than to annoy the crap out of the Right-Wingers all over the country, whose typical reaction to anyone who disagrees them is to attempt to silence their voice. I hope that every time the Dixie Chicks sing a song, the Right-Wingers shiver.

Well, I don't criticize anyone for their musical tastes, but this whole thing sums up why I don't listen to country music. You must remember that I am someone who has in his CD collection music by Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, Kris Kristofferson, Johnny Cash, Hank Williams (I, II and III), among many others that are considered to be legends in Country music. The problem here is that they've stopped making Country music. What exists now is a format and form that fits an ideology. It's the soundtrack to a political point of view. The Conservatives saw that Bill Clinton used Rock and Roll, and so they adopted Country music. The result was propaganda.

Frank Bell, VP of programming at independent Froggy radio, said “I think when you look at what country music and country music listeners are all about, it’s family, fun, faith and flag. I haven’t heard the whole CD, but the singles have none of that.”

That explains somewhat the incredible outpouring of emotion and propaganda that has surrounded the Dixie Chicks' latest album. The Dixie Chicks broke with formatting.

They broke away from the very things I hate about contemporary Country music. I've travelled extensively in the United States. I've been in countless truck stops where contemporary Country music was playing over the intercom. And I must say that it's virtually impossible to tell one singer or song from the next. But what makes it so grating is that on top of that incredible banality they pile on ideas such as patriotism and love of country, and somehow portray this drivel as the music of the American patriot. Rock and Roll is for anarchists. Country is for Americans.

This is not a dissection of the relative merits of Country music versus Rock and Roll, but rather a rant about how an entire genre of music has been taken over by a Right-Wing ideology. If our democracy falls to the one-party theocracy that the Religious Right and Right-Wing Conservatives are aching for, it will largely be accomplished to a Country music soundtrack.

I don't see that the Dixie Chicks have any choice but to leave behind the lemmings who constituted their original fan base. To that end I offer them the best. I believe that I may very well buy their new CD just to help them shake a fist at these charlatans in Country music who wrap themselves in the American flag and then betray American democracy by demanding that any voices that contradict their own be silenced immediately.

I have to say, given the level of discourse going on surrounding the Dixie Chicks and their latest album, they will most likely do just fine. If for no other reason than that the furor will compell a lot of people to come see what all the fuss is about.

- Watch Alert archived post

Hysteria and The DaVinci Code

2006-05-21T19:33:00.000-04:00

First off, let me say one thing. If your faith can be shaken or challenged by the contents of a movie, your faith is weak, to say the least.

I am not one of those people who believe that the average person is a weak-minded sheep who cannot make up his or her own mind about something, and must therefore be protected from anything which might lead them in a direction certain people don't want them to follow. Simply put, if The DaVinci Code doesn't appeal to you, don't go see it.

If you are going to form groups to try to boycott this movie and prevent it from being shown in theaters, then you will certainly have no right to complain when later on someone wants to boycott and shut down a movie that you might want to see out there (such as those terrible movies based on the Left Behind series). The same people who want to shut down The DaVinci Code and prevent people from seeing it would have screamed bloody murder had someone tried to do the same thing to The Passion of the Christ.

Sorry, folks. While I understand that this movie is controversial, to say the least, and will undoubtedly offend some people, this is not a religious issue. This is an issue concerning the very foundations of our democracy. Thomas Jefferson said that freedom of expression “cannot be limited without being lost.” In other words, you cannot limit the freedoms of others without giving up the same liberties for yourself.

But greaters minds that I have had plenty to say on this subject. It would serve the boycotters well to remember some of the ones I've listed below.

“You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.” - Clarence Darrow

“When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.” - Dorothy Thompson

“The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with.” - Eleanor Holmes Norton

“If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.” - Noam Chomsky

Long story short, folks, the point I'm trying to make is that you can't have it both ways. What's so difficult to understand about that? If you sell your neighbor into slavery, what gives you the right to complain when they come to enslave you?

I'm certainly not saying that people who disagree with this movie should remain silent. I don't have a problem with people speaking out about The DaVinci Code (or anything that they disagree with). But when they form groups and try to prevent other people to see it, they have betrayed our Foundating Fathers and the sacrifices of our American ancestors, who spilled their blood and gave their lives defending the freedoms that too many Americans are so eager to just give away.

I understand why Christians would be upset with the premise of The DaVinci Code. But the same people who made fun of Muslims when they were outraged by the depiction of the prophet Mohammad in cartoons are largely acting in the same fashion.

Is The DaVinci Code blasphemous? Yes. To most Christians, it is indeed blasphemous. The problem here is that when Dan Brown wrote the book that this movie is based upon, he never contended that it was factional. It's been marketed as fiction. It's been accepted and read by people who understood that it's fiction. I've known many Christians who read the book, thought it was great, and walked away from it without any doubts about their faith. One has to wonder why so many other people simply cannot do that.

I'll tell you why. The majority of Americans practice what I call a shallow faith. As long as they go to church on occasion, play at being religious, and call themselves Christians, they believe that they are “what they should be.” These are the people who protest the loudest when their shallow faith is challenged by a movie or a book, or are offended by a logo on a bottle of shampoo or a phrase on a can of Pepsi.

These are the people who are potesting the loudest now, because their shallow faith has been challenged by a movie. The reason their faith can be challenged so easily is that Jesus Christ and his teachings has very little to do with how they conduct their daily lives. Somewhere deep in the recesses of their minds, they know that they are not what they should be. They believe that by protesting louder than anyone else, they can somehow prove to God (as well as their neighbors) that they are, indeed, “the real deal.”

In summation, it seems to me that the story of Jesus Christ and the depth of his teachings has survived for two thousand years. I imagine Jesus will weather The DaVinci Code just fine, without the help of these charlatans who are standing on every rooftop and shouting that the world is coming to an end.

I say come down from there. Buy youself a ticket to The DaVinci Code and go sit in that theater and watch this movie. If you then leave that theater doubting your belief in Jesus Christ, then you were never a Christian to begin with. The sooner you accept it and move on with your life, the better off you will be.

- Watch Alert archived post

First Lady: Don't Politicize Marriage Amendment

2006-05-15T13:14:00.000-04:00

Yes. Read that again.

“First lady: Don't politicize marriage amendment.” That's what it says.

First Lady Laura Bush said Sunday that Americans want debate on a proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage, but “I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously.”

:: blink ::

I had to read that several times to wrap my brain around it. My first thought was “you're f**king kidding me.” Not use it as a campaign tool? It is a campaign tool! The proposed amendment itself is nothing but a political stunt engineered by the Republicans to shore up their quivering base of support with the ultra-conservative Right-Wing nutjobs who continue to supply bodies to the Republican war machine. Well, okay. Not so many bodies. That's what the poor are for. But they supply money to keep it all churning away.

Naturally, Laura Bush couldn't stop there. Just like her husband, the more she talked, the more bizarre it got.

“It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue -- a lot of sensitivity,” she said on Fox News Sunday.

Sensitivity to whom, exactly? Those gays and lesbians who are in danger of having a basic right stripped away from them by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America? Or are we talking about sensitivity to those right-wing nutjobs who find it offensive that gays and lesbians exist?

Here's the issue. Early next month, the Senate will debate legislation that would have the Constitution define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This was revealed by Majority Leader Bill Frist on CNN's Late Edition.

President Bush supports the amendment, but Vice President Dick Cheney does not. Cheney's daughter Mary is a lesbian and has been speaking out against the marriage amendment as she promotes her book, Now It's My Turn. She said on Fox (oddly enough) that the proposed amendment “is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong.”

Okay, I agree with Mary Chaney on this much. But she can still kiss my ass. This is the woman who kept a low profile during her father's re-election campaign and who was kept essentially under wraps during the Republican convention. But now that her father isn't facing re-election, she decides to stand up and be counted? She could have made a difference for gays and lesbians in 2004 when the Republicans were ranting their usual homophobia. It's a bit late now for anyone give a damn what Mary Chaney thinks about anything.

Bill Frist said he would defend the amendment even to Dick Cheney.

“I basically say, Mr. Vice President, right now marriage is under attack in this country,” Frist said on CNN. “And we've seen activist judges overturning state by state law ... and that is why we need an amendment” to the Constitution.

I still can't believe what's going on here. The Republicans want to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman? I dunno. I keep thinking about the Constitution, and all of the incredibly important issues addressed in it. Oh, you know. The right of be free of unreasonable search and seizure. The right to recourse to a court of law. The right to speak freely without fear of being thrown into Guantanamo Bay. You should know what's on the list. Somehow, I have trouble comprehending how any group of Americans could hope to amend the Constitution to limit the rights of another group of Americans. I don't see how that bit of legislation could possibly fit in with the lofty goals and ideals of the rest of the Constitution.

Look, folks. It's simple. If the United States Government expects gays and lesbians to pay taxes and to pay money into FICA and Social Security programs just like every other American, how then can it tell them that they're not just like every other American, but are instead part of a separate group that does not deserve the same rights? If you won't allow them to marry like every other American, why do you still expect them to pay those taxes?

I'm not worried about activist judges. They're the least of our troubles. It's activist legislators that are creating all of the havoc in this country. It's a bunch of Right-Wing Republicans who believe that the Founding Fathers didn't know what they were doing, and are trying to refashion the very foundations of our country to fit their extremist right-wing ideology. People like Bill Frist and George W. Bush are the enemies of American democracy.

I'm sure Bill First and George W. Bush don't mind lesbians as long as they're featured in a backroom video that they and their buddies are watching while their wives are away. But God forbid that their daughter should bring home another woman and declare her love for her. Oh, wait. That would be different, wouldn't it? It is for Vice President Dick Cheney in regard to his daughter, Mary, anyway.

One has to wonder how Dick Cheney sleeps at night knowing that he and his Republicans buddies have done everything they can possibly do to limit the freedoms that his daughter may enjoy as an American. Mr. Cheney, how can you do that to your own daughter?

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

The NSA and King George

2006-05-13T12:13:00.000-04:00

Well, you knew I had to get to this issue sooner or later.

For anyone who's been hiding under a rock, it was revealed early last week that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth.

“It's the largest database ever assembled in the world,” said one person, who declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation's borders, this person added.

For customers of those companies, this means that the United Sates government has detailed records of calls they made, whether the call was across town or across the country, to their family members, co-workers, business contacts and others. And since all things loop back upon itself with the Bush Administration and their cabal of incestuous cronies, it's worth noting that Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who has just been nominated by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. That means that Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden had nothing to say about it. Oddly enough.

Well, President Bush and the Administration scrambled quickly to put out this particular fire. Essentially King George was trotted out before the cameras to do his usual redirection by raising the spectre of terrorism, insisting that the NSA program is necessary, and reassuring Americans that they can trust their government. According to the President; “We're not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates. So far we've been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil.”

Yada yada. Do you feel reassured? Well, here's the problem. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information aren't being handed over as part of the program. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information. Bush & Company raise the spectre of al Qaeda to scare us into thinking this is perfectly reasonable.

“Are you telling me tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaeda?”" Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy complained. “These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything.”

Maybe we should put this in perspective. In 1975, a congressional investigation discovered that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named “Shamrock,” led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping. So the very agency that President Bush is asking us to trust is the agency whose activities led to the legislation that specifically limits the surveillance activities of the NSA, CIA and FBI, and was designed to provide oversight and some sense of accountability.

As for what Americans think of all this, it looks like it's all coming down to party affiliation once again. By 51%-43%, those responding to a poll disapproved of the program (disclosed Thursday in USA TODAY). I'm astounded that the numbers are that close. What in the world could make someone think this is a great idea? Most of those who approve of the program say it violates some civil liberties but is acceptable because “investigating terrorism is the more important goal”

Does this sound remotely familiar to anyone else? Every time it's been discovered that the government is up to something else no good, all of the Conservative Republican media outlets start spewing forth this rhetoric about how in a time of war certain sacrifices must be made. It looks like a lot of people agree with that. They're willing to see their children and grandchildren in chains, just as long as they don't have to be frightened by the spectre of al Qaeda.

Yeah, these handcuffs chafe, but we're keeping the terrorists are bay, man.

Out of all this mess, one bright spot has emerged. There's at least one company that did not go ass-up the first time the NSA laid a $50 bill on the table. Americans were betrayed by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth. But one major telecommunications company refused to participate in the NSA spying program: Qwest.

I'll quote verbatim below from an article in USA Today.

According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.

Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as “product” in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.

The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. “They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them,” one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest's financial health. But Qwest's legal questions about the NSA request remained.

Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio's successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.

As far as I'm concerned, all you need to know about this issue can be summed up by this last part about Qwest. Simply put, if the NSA was operating totally within the boundaries of the law, as President Bush and his cronies have been asserting, why was it so afraid to go before the FISA court or the U.S. Attorney General?

Well, at least one company didn't sell us out. Thanks Qwest. Perhaps there is hope for our democracy, after all.

And as for AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth?

They can all kiss my all-American ass.

- Watch Alert archived post

Bush Hires Fox News Commentator

2006-04-26T19:54:00.000-04:00

If anyone needed proof that Fox News was a Republican mouthpiece, President Bush just delivered it by hiring Fox News commentator Tony Snow to replace Scott McClellan as White House press secretary. While my first thought was that it makes sense for the Bush Administration to hire someone from Fox News (since anyone from Fox is practically on the payroll already), my second thought concerned Tony Snow's credentials. What in the world made the Bushies think of Tony Snow?

The Conservatives are spinning this as proof that President Bush is willing to shake up his staff and make needed changes by going outside of his usual cabal of Bush-worshippers. These opinions are delivered without the apparent irony of President Bush hiring a Fox News commentator and considering him to be an outsider.

Well, Tony Snow is not the outsider that Conservatives are making him out to be. He served as a speechwriter and deputy assistant for media affairs for President George H.W. Bush from 1991 to 1993. Are we to believe that's unrelated?

Honestly, I don't think there's much of a story here. I could care less who the White House moutpiece is. But I'm getting a little tired of hearing the Republicans trying to spin this as proof that President Bush is trying to bring someone into the White House who will have credibility. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but he hired a guy from Fox News!

They get that credibility bit from the fact that Tony Snow has been critical of President Bush. However, you have to look at that in context. Snow has been critical of Bush for diverging from the true Conservative path, not for being the inept, war-mongering idiot that everyone else criticizes him for being. It's hardly criticism for a Conservative commentator to lament that the President is not being conservative enough. And it hardly gives him credibility.

What a strange world we live in.

It makes perfect sense for me that President Bush should hire someone from Fox News. After all, the Bush Administration and Fox News have a lot in common. Both of them are operating within an artificial reality of their own making that is not related in any way, shape or form to that annoying reality that the rest of us have to deal with.

- Watch Alert archived post

Tell the World: Torture is Un-American

2006-04-26T19:44:00.000-04:00

If you agree with me that torture, indefinite detention and secret government kidnapping are un-American, I think you’ll be interested in a petition that I just signed.

These practices should not represent the United States of America. But today, two years after the truth was exposed about government-sponsored torture and abuse, the U.S. has failed to reverse the policies that led to this abuse -- and has yet to hold a single high-ranking official responsible.

After the horrors of World War II, our leaders helped draft universal principles that prohibit torture and protect human rights. I hope you join me in defending that legacy by signing the petition and speaking out against torture.

Please join with thousands of others and sign the petition today: http://action.aclu.org/tortureisunamerican

Thanks.

Wicasta Lovelace

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article

A 4-star Defense of the Republic

2006-04-22T11:29:00.000-04:00

While on the road, I've recently run into a lot of well-meaning but confused Conservatives who are of the opinion that the generals who recently criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and called for his resignation are part of some kind of conspiracy to undermine American democracy, and are attempting to assert military control of our civilian government. Most of these people are surprised to learn that these generals are all retired, and as such have honored the very system they're accused of undermining by not speaking out until after they had left the military and had returned to civilian life.

It always amazes me that anyone in the military who criticizes anyone in the Bush Administration (a collection of individuals whose collective military experience could be summed up in a few paragraphs) is immediately portrayed as undermining America itself and its “War on Terror ©,” while any military personnel who agrees with the Administration and speaks out to that effect is trotted before the cameras and hailed as a true American hero.

With that in mind, I was delighted to discover an article by Rosa Brooks in the L.A. Times. She sums up everything that I've been thinking, and does so in a way that simply makes sense. I've actually thought about making copies of this article and keeping them with me so that I could just hand them out to whatever clueless Conservative I came across whose perceptions of this issue come straight from the propaganda unit of Fox News.

I've included the article below in case you might want to do this, as well.

Rosa Brooks:
A 4-star defense of the republic
April 21, 2006

WHEN SIX recently retired generals criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war and urged his resignation, the Bush administration reacted as if the generals had announced an impending military coup. Within days, administration loyalists were suggesting that the generals had been disloyal not merely to Rumsfeld but to American democracy itself.

The dissenting generals seemed almost surprised by the speed and savagery of the administration's counteroffensive. Maybe they had assumed that their combat records and decades of service would protect them. Or maybe they had been lulled into a false sense of security by the administration's floundering Iraq policies and assumed that Rumsfeld and his White House backers were just too distracted and incompetent to go after a few courteous, highly decorated critics. But the generals should have known that this administration can be ferociously competent when there's something really important — like President Bush's poll numbers — at stake.

On the right, the key talking point in the War Against the Generals quickly emerged: “Civilian control of the military.” It was an effective line of attack, and so clever that even many who ought to have known better were suckered. The Washington Post editorial board on Tuesday, for instance, fell for it hook, line and sinker, worrying that the retired generals were threatening “the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control…. If [the generals] are successful in forcing Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, they will set an ugly precedent.”

They even had me nodding along there for a few minutes. After all, every student of recent history knows that if you dilute civilian control of the military, you end up with fascism or a Latin American-style military junta. Because constant security threats are necessary to maintain the power and credibility of a military regime, a nation that lacks civilian control of the military gets ensnared in unending, pointless wars, often against an increasingly vaguely defined threat. Gradually, the broader society becomes militarized. Dissenters are denounced as cowards or traitors, and domestic surveillance becomes common. Secret military courts and detention systems begin to supplant the civilian judicial system. Detainees get tortured, and some end up mysteriously dead after interrogation.

We definitely wouldn't want that kind of regime to control the United States, would we?

IT WAS AT THIS POINT that I got the joke — because, dear reader, we're already well on the way to having that kind of regime. If Rumsfeld thought he could get away with calling himself Il Generalissimo, don't you think he'd do so in a heartbeat?

In the looking-glass world the Bush administration has brought us, it's the civilians in the White House and the Pentagon who have been eager to embrace the values normally exemplified by military juntas, while many uniformed military personnel have struggled to insist on values that are supposed to characterize democratic civil society.

Iraq is only one of the many issues on which military personnel have stood up against foolish or immoral administration policies. In 2003, the three generals and one admiral who collectively head the JAG Corps of the various services wrote strongly worded internal memos opposing the administration's authorization of interrogation techniques that border on or constitute torture. Navy Rear Adm. Michael Lohr, for instance, condemned the techniques as “inconsistent with our most fundamental values.” In January 2005, five retired generals filed an amicus brief in a case before the Supreme Court opposing the administration's argument that suspects tried by military commissions are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Many more examples could be cited.

The claim that the six dissenting generals are betraying the principle of civilian control over the military is both silly and sinister. It's silly because polite, reasoned criticism from retired generals is just free speech, a very far cry from “forcing” the Defense secretary out. And it's sinister because civilian control is a means of safeguarding democracy, not an end in itself. When that gets forgotten, the phrase becomes just another way to stifle dissent.

Military officers must obey all lawful commands and refrain from using “contemptuous words” about their civilian leaders. But when officers take the military oath, they also pledge to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

That's a hard oath, because bearing “true faith” to the Constitution requires military personnel to speak out, regardless of the cost, when they think our civilian leaders have gone beyond the pale. Both our democracy and the lives of the soldiers who fight in our name depend on it. If officers remain silent when our military policies go terribly wrong, there's little the rest of us can do to set things right again.

- Watch Alert archived post
- Original Article