Once Upon an Opine

Lost Down the Barrel of a Gun

2007-04-17T16:42:00.001-04:00

I didn't really follow the story closely yesterday about the Virgina Tech shooting. I guess it's because i've become so jaded towards violence in this country that i'm neither shocked, or concerned whenever I hear about it. Today, though, I read the full story about exactly what happened at VT. First, I would like to express my sincerest condolences to the victims of that tragedy and their families. What happened yesterday was a sick, twisted, and unacceptable act that cannot be justified by any behavior. There is never a good reason to go anywhere and just pull a gun on a bunch of people.

I've always been anti-gun, and when I hear about things like this it usually lights a fire underneath me. There are lots of problems with the gun laws in America, and yesterday 32 people had to die because of them. The shooter, it is said, had been suffering from depression and was taking medication to treat the condition. Yet, he was still able to purchase a 9mm Glock pistol. There are background checks that are conducted on people who purchase weapons, but obviously the checks are not effective enough to filter out those who have no reason owning a gun. Clearly these background checks MUST extend into medical records. I understand the patient/doctor privacy laws, but if people who have a record of depression and/or violence, doesn't it make sense to make these records available to respective background agencies?

I live in the South. I've heard every reason why guns need to be kept around. The most common reason being that it's important to keep a gun in the house to protect the family from any unwarranted break-in. I guess the thinking on that is when the high pressure situation of confronting a burglar, who most likely is armed themselves, arises the person who owns the gun will be able to aim steady, shoot accurately, or hope it scares the burglar into submission. Let's also assume the gun owner keeps all of his guns, fully loaded, in the bedroom. Our right to bear arms in this country is an embarassment. The arguments to keep the amendment around are weak. If we, as a country, want to put an end to violence like this then we MUST ratify the constitution to ban the ownership of guns.

But then again, by next week, everyone outside of Virginia will have already put this tragedy out of their minds. We didn't learn anything from Columbine. We won't learn anything from this.

Plugging the Leaks

2006-06-28T02:01:00.000-04:00

With all the talk about important anti-terror measures being leaked I think this is a good time to bring up a few points.

First, the programs that are supposedly oh-so-vital to the capture and elimination of terrorists/terrorism are being leaked by the press. The most recent being the program designed to monitor international wire transfers to banks overseas.

The politicians who lambast these publications for talking about these programs don't do them any justice by drawing attention to the programs by venting their frustrations via open airwaves.

The same naysayers will then turn around and leak the commanding general in Iraq his strategy for slowly withdrawing troops and bringing them home.

Pardon Me

2006-06-18T14:58:00.000-04:00

When an executive signs anything into law they have the option to sign a pardon into the bill that states they do not have to follow the law they are signing into action. This is a perfectly legal tatic.

Over the past 200 years of presidents the pardon has only been used 5 times.

George W. Bush has taken advantage used the pardon 750 times.

No More Terror!

2006-06-09T14:25:00.000-04:00

It's easy to get wrapped up in al-Zarqwai's death. It's even easier to view this as a massive turning point in the Iraq war. I like to believe that it is a turning point, and that sectarian violence is going to decrease.

What has happened here is surely a victory for America. However, this can easily turn into a momentum swing for al qaeda. It has been said that al-Zarqwai's role was inflated by the US. There had to be a scapegoat for the sectarian violence in Iraq, and Zarqwai was made that man. It's also easier for the US public to support something when there is a clear goal (i.e. eliminate Zarqwai).

I don't want to undermine what has happened here, because I do feel like this is a monumentous event for our troops. But, let us not forget that al qaeda thrives on martyrdom. Al-Zarqwai has been made a martyr, and sometimes that makes the deceased individual even stronger. Also, on many occassions, it has been proven that these qaeda operatives can still be effective, if not stronger, without leadership.

So, lets go ahead and celebrate what has gone on here because it is surely a day of triumph. But, we have to make sure not forget who our enemies are, and what they are capable of.

This is it

2006-06-07T22:30:00.000-04:00

The divorce rate in the United States is approximately 50% among married men and women. The divorce rate among same-sex couples is about 0%.

What does that tell you about the sanctity of marriage?

Dirty Harry

2006-06-06T16:36:00.000-04:00

Harry Reid was caught by the Associated Press accepting free tickets to a boxing event in Nevada, his state of representation. Reid is sponsoring a bill in the senate that is designed to make it more difficult for lawmakers to accept gifts from lobbyist groups attempting to gain support in the congressional ranks.

In Nevada the Federal Boxing Commission exists. This is the governing body of boxing in the state of Nevada. The Boxing Commission in Nevada feels threatened by the possiblity of another commission being formed to make sure the Nevada Commission are doing things right. Reid says that accepting these tickets (to three matches) was not a conflict of interest, but many see this as the Nevada Federal Boxing Commission trying to get Reid alone so they can attempt to convince him to vote against the formation of another ruling body.

I have always thought for quite some time now that Harry Reid is the wrong man leading the democrats. He seems dysfunctional, and can never do anything without contradicting himself. If the democrats expect to do anything this year they need to find a quick cure to their Kerryitis (awful timing disease), and fast.

Energy Inefficient

2006-05-21T21:28:00.000-04:00

George Bush can easily establish an energy commission in the senate that would explain to Americans why gas prices are so high. Instead he authorizes an investigation into price fixing and gouging which, essentially, isn't going to solve our "addiction" to oil. If Bush and congress were to pass into a law a set of harsh measures (i.e. higher gas taxes, fuel-efficiency standards starting at 30 and rising to 40 mpg, tax credits for new technologies*) we could begin our petroleum detoxification.

Fareed Zakaria says it best: "...it would signal to the market that demand for oil in the United States was likely to stabilize. The fear, uncertainty and speculation that is built into the price of oil right now would ease. I could see the headline now: GOVERNMENT ACTS BOLDLY; OIL PRICES DROP. That's not just good economics, it's good politics."

*source

Bush raises taxes on Teens

2006-05-21T14:39:00.000-04:00

According to today's article in the New York Times the tax cuts Bush passed for the mega-rich will be financed in part by tax increases on teens. Teens 14 - 17 years old who are saving for higher education will pay an extra $2.2 billion in taxes over the next decade.

By signing this GW not only broke a promise (never to raise taxes on anybody - a stupid promise in my view, but one he made nonetheless) but also discourages kids from (a) saving and (b) aspiring to higher education.

Great job George.

Democrats Ride to Victory in 2006...Not So Fast

2006-05-20T14:25:00.000-04:00

I have believed this for quite some time now, but all this talk about a sweeping victory by the Dems this November is a little premature. First of all a lot of the Democratic candidates are running against incumbents. Taking a look at how voters traditionally express themselves, they have to be very unhappy with who's in office. Voters have to be unhappy on election day not one, three, or six months earlier. They also have to be unhappy about basic issues, and be convinced that the alternative is indeed a better solution.

The Democrats also need to dump their strategy of playing off the nation's unease of the Iraq quagmire by calling for an immediate withdrawl of troops. It's an attempt at reminding voters of the withdrawl from Vietnam 30 years ago. But that was a different time, different situation, and a different war. Bush ultimately owns the authority to call for the withdrawl of troops from Iraqi soil. If he calls for an immediate removal of troops at current levels right before election time, then this strategy bombshell can easily cause a quagmire for the DNC.

To quote Barry Casselman, the author of the article I read, "These days, we seem to want the future to be clear and present now. The trend of the moment is mistaken for an outcome ahead. History does not seem to work that way. History bobs and weaves in defiance of our logic. History always loves to surprise us."

Get fooled again?

2006-05-17T22:48:00.000-04:00

Expect to see divisive non-issues start to dominate Congressional debate and the news as Rove, Frist, and the others lead their bankrupt party into the elections. We'll hear about gay marriage, flag-burning, the national anthem as they try to "mobilize the base". Let's hope the base has had enough of the Republican's cynical, negative, anxiety-driven approach to government.

Let's hope the real issues - America's drift towards 3rd world standards (re: disappearing middle-class, sub-standard health care, pre-occupation with military might), national debt ($83,000 per family of 3, plus another $4,000/year interest payments ), and...Iraq take center stage.
Visit the U.S. National Debt Clock

Speaking of the national debt: Why are taxpayers financing the salary, expenses, and overhead costs of Karl Rove? Since when were our taxes allowed to be used for the single-minded promotion of one party? He is not governing, he is campaigning. So he should be dumped from the government payroll and paid for by the Republican Party

Cheating Chambliss

2006-05-16T14:40:00.000-04:00

I received a response from Chambliss' office today about the email I sent yesterday. Perhaps his office made a mistake because they sent me the same response I got when I emailed my first message to his office. Here is what I fired back. I resent the message I sent yesterday so i'll cut that out of my response to here since everyone can scroll below to see what it says.

"Dear Sir,

I believe your office made a mistake. Your secretary must have clicked the wrong button, because I was sent the same automated message I received when I wrote you for the first time. To correct the error your office has made I will resend my original email in an attempt to gain a real response from your office about your contradictory voting record.

" "

Please tell your secretary to be more careful when sending prefabricated emails.

Sincerely,
Dan Delle Monache"

Saxby Update

2006-05-15T14:44:00.000-04:00

I tried calling Saxby's office back at the number they called me from, but I received a recording telling me the number was incorrect. Instead of getting caught up in a mountain of recordings I fired off another email. You should notice the email is basically a reproduction of a post.

Here it is:

"OK. you want to cut the deficit.

But you did support the relatvely huge , ½ trillion dollar defense budget.

If you really care about the deficit, why did you vote against accountability on how that huge amount of money is spent? I read about tanks, jets, and other weapons inventories disappearing (possibly into the hands of terrorists?). I read about billions of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq. Yet you vote against bills to to investigate contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. And you vote against budget accountability for the wars.

Wouldn’t the ½ trillion defense budget provide a better opportunity for finding savings than preventing some low income young adults from getting an education?

Put it in perspective. If war contracting was made more efficient (less fraudulent?) by only 3/10ths of a percent, we’d have gotten the $1.5 billion that you took from veterans medical care. And we’d have gotten it by cutting waste instead of dishonoring this country’s soldiers.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Thank You,
Dan"

Can't wait to hear the response to that one. If your senator voted against this bill too I encourage each of you to write to them asking the same questions. You can find their roll call votes on the Senate's webpage.

Don't Get Your History in Stereo(type)

2006-05-14T22:53:00.000-04:00

With your permission, readers, I would like to digress a little. This entry still has to do with politics, but not so much with an issue of magnificant importance. Sheila Kuehl, a senator in the California state legislature, has put forth a bill that would make sure gay men and lesbians get their mention in state textbooks.

I am an advocate of gay rights (gay marriage, and adoption by gay couples). I have these point of views because I don't feel like gays are a detriment to our society like we are made to believe. I also feel like gays are people, just like you and me, and should be treated as such without judgement, or persecution. However, the problem with Ms. Kuehl's bill is it creates another stereotype in textbooks. I don't like how teachers have to categorize historical heroes with a stereotype. Many prominent historical figures are known primarily by the color of their skin, or in this case, their sexual orientation.

Take black history month for example. By definition it's a month where we reflect on the accomplishments of influential african-americans throughout history. I don't want to take anything away from these extraordinary feats, but there doesn't need to be a month dedicated too their accomplishments. I'm not trying to advocate a 'white history month' or any form of history month for any race, class, or type of people. We don't need this stuff.

The proper place for recognition of the heroes of our past generations is in history class, but not as stereotypes. We don't need to turn history class into a subject where we study an individual's accomplishments because of their skin color, religion, or sexual orientation. When someone changes the path of history it should be mentioned, studied, and never forgotten.

History should be unbiased. We shouldn't remember those heroes because they are black, white, hispanic, gay, or straight. When an activist changes history it's not for the better good of one class or race. Their contributions change, and effect everybody.

When Dr. King led the way during the civil rights movement he wasn't doing it for people of his own race. He was doing it for America, and we need to remember that.

We need to do away with the stereotypes.

The Truth About New Homes

2006-05-13T00:15:00.000-04:00

I was watching the finale of the Bill Maher show tonight, and Bill mentioned something that I didn't know. I'm sure everyone is familiar with all the talk about the number of homes being purchased? The Bush Administration uses this statistic to show how well us citizens are doing. Well, tonight I learned that 40% of all new home purchases are made by rich Americans buying second homes. So it's not that America altogether is that much better off, it's that rich America has more money to spend.

It never seems to stop. How they get away with this I do not know.

Saxby Chambliss' office called me today in response to the email I fired back. It's in the archives of the Opine titled "Saxby...Not as Good as Zaxby(s)" if you haven't read it. They caught me at a really bad time, and when I asked if they could call me back in a couple of hours the guy didn't seem interested. So in the 20 seconds I talked with him he tried defending Chambliss' stance on block grants by saying every time one is eliminated Saxby votes to have it replaced. Since my email talked about more than just block grants I plan on calling his office back when I have some more time. I did some research and came up with some questions to ask his spokesperson, and while I was looking I found that Saxby makes considerable donations to the John Birch foundation. John Birch was a white supremist who had an iron fist against communism in the 70's...he's not a good man. McCarthy was heavily endorsed by this guy during that time. Lets just say I look forward to talking to the senator's office and seeing the response I get. If I don't like what I get then I plan on going to the local news paper The Atlanta Journal Constitution and attempt to get some of this trash about him published.

I would love to run against Saxby when he's up for re-election in 2008, but I think I would still be too young.

Saxby's Priorities

2006-05-12T22:08:00.000-04:00

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is proud of his fiscal record. Quote:

"...goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009. The budget builds on last year's successful spending restraint by again holding the growth of overall discretionary spending below inflation...

...I cosponsored legislation to cap non-defense, non-trust-fund, discretionary spending..."

Doesn't this sound like a senator that would abhor any kind of wasteful government spending? But apparently, when it comes to the really big money, he's not such a cost-cutter after all...

But check out his voting record. True, he voted against certain “non-defense, discretionary spending” like

-increasing funding for veterans medical services ($1.5 bn, to be funded by closing corporate tax loopholes) and

-raising pell grant limits to $4500

-restoring cuts to job training programs (funded by closing corporate tax loopholes)

OK. We have this deficit, and even though the amounts he avoided spending were relatively small, he wants to cut the deficit.

But he did support the relatvely huge , ½ trillion dollar defense budget.

If he really cares about the deficit, why did he vote against accountability on how that huge amount of money is spent? We read about tanks, jets, and other weapons inventories disappearing (possibly into the hands of terrorists?). We read about billions of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq. Yet he votes against bills to to investigate contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he votes against budget accountability for the wars.

Wouldn’t the ½ trillion defense budget provide a better opportunity for finding savings than preventing some low income young adults from getting an education?

Put it in perspective. If war contracting was made more efficient (less fraudulent?) by only 3/10ths of a percent, we’d have gotten the $1.5 billion that he took from veterans medical care. And we’d have gotten it by cutting waste instead of dishonoring this country’s soldiers.

End of the (Phone) Line

2006-05-11T13:27:00.000-04:00

It appears that the NSA story just won't die for the Bush Administration. Congress is still attacking the President about his spy program. It seems as if Congress has finally cut completely away from the president, and it's about time. There needs to be some serious investigations into this matter because I highly doubt the legality of this program. The administration's answers about it are very paltry, and the evidence is minimal. Unless there is some law I don't know about, why doesn't the Bush administration request that the federal judges, who granted their requests for spying on telephone calls, be asked to testify in front of the judicial committee? It also befuddles me how the administration never tries hard to prove to Americans the legality of their system. I understand the importance of not leaking strategy to the enemy, but if you're telling them you're spying on phone calls then the secrets out.

A few Americans have said, "I don't have a problem with these programs, because they are protecting me from terrorists and I want the terrorists stopped." Well, the truth behind that is debatable. The problem with spying on American phone calls is that it contains several loopholes. First, you have to trust the government in power to not abuse this authority, and with the Bush administration I do not. Second, this sets a dangerous precendent for American citizens. Once a government begins spying on its citizens without warrants then that can really set the government up for more and more invasive activities. America needs to be careful, because this wreckless administration has no problem taking our civil liberties and flushing them down the toilet.

I know Bush has told people over and over these telephone taps are legal, but where are the warrants? He doesn't have to show every word of the warrant, but perhaps an outline of one just to prove that he did go to the courts. Such a move would have been recorded in the annotated court reporter's record. So why can't his administration refer us to those documents? They are available in most public libraries, and on the internet. Also, where are the judges who issued these warrants? Couldn't they be subpoenaed for their actions? None of these steps have been made by the President, and that is why i seriously doubt the legality of his actions. Not enough has been done to convince me that he is doing the right thing, or that this is having a serious affect on the police action against terrorism. If anyone can recall, Bush tried defending his spy program by telling America that it prevented an attack on a building in Los Angeles. The mayor of Los Angeles didn't even find out about the botched attack until he read/saw the news and heard Bush talking about it.

Just think about it.

Nothing but Net

2006-05-09T21:03:00.000-04:00

Nearly 3,000 kids die every day in Africa from malaria. According to the World Health Organization, transmission of the disease would be reduced by 60% with the use of mosquito nets and prompt treatment for the infected. 3,000 kids is a 9/11 every day.

The nets are coated with an insecticide and cost between $4 and $6. You need about $10 to get them shipped and installed. Some nets can cover a family of four. They also last four years. For $10 that means a kid gets to live. Make it $20 and even more kids are saved. Please consider making a donation to this website UNFoundation.org/malaria. All it takes is a simple $20 and a kid's life is saved.

Rick Reilly of Sports Illustrated has donated $20,000 to the foundation because he calculated that he has said the word 'net' 20,000 times total in all of his publications. Together we can raise $1 million and save 50 times the population of Nett Lake, Minnesota.

How much of that $1 million goes towards the nets?

well, all of it. That's because thanks to Ted Turner, who donated $1 billion to create the UN Foundation, which covers all overhead costs, every cent goes to nets. Bill and Melinda Gates have single-handedly finished covering every bed of Zambia. The UN Foundation is not asking for people to invest money into a scientist looking for a cure, and there are no worries about warlords hijacking a truckload of nets.

According to Andrea Gay, the UN Foundation's Director of Children's Health, "Theoretically if every person in Africa slept under a net, nobody need ever die of malaria again."

That's a serious return on profits. Think about it $20 is not a big price to pay, and it gurantees that someone gets to live, and an instant return on your investment. Those odds are better than money invested in the stock market.

(almost all of this post was generated with the help of Rick Reilly's SI article about the dangers of malaria)

Democrats Might Have Something After All

2006-05-08T13:27:00.000-04:00

Rove is up to his usual tricks again. But, the Democrats might have something to actually run on. John Conyers Jr., the representative from Michigan, has said if the Democrats win back control of the house he will launch an investigation to impeach George Bush. Patrick Leahy said if the democrats regain control of the senate then he is going to launch an investigation into the NSA spy program. This sounds like a platform. I think the Democrats should be screaming this message at the voters. Many moderate voters complain that they don't know where the Democrats stand, and this is the time for the Demos to tell them.

They need to be careful though. Rove is out trying to convince voters that if the Democrats win back both chambers that terrorism will take a back burner, and that "our worst fears" will be answered. Hopefully the polls aren't as far off from reality as they were in the 2004 presidential election. Lets hope Rove's bag of tricks are empty. We desperately need a change of guard, and it has to come before 2008.

Fighting Terrorism

2006-05-07T12:50:00.000-04:00

Terrorists are not warriors. They are gangsters. War is, according to the dictionary “a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties”. Terrorists are not nations or states. And there are too many different terrorist organizations to reasonably constitute an identifiable “party” with whom we are at war.

So let’s treat terrorists as what they are – criminals, thugs, gangsters. Let use crime fighting tactics to defeat them, and international police organizations like Interpol, to support us. Let’s not continue allowing Bush to indulge his fantasy role as “war president” any longer. And let’s not let him continue to use “state of war” as an excuse for executive branch “war powers” and limited congressional authority. For an anti-democratic ruler like Bush, the “War on Terror” is the perfect excuse for the perpetual state of war that characterized the totalitarian regime of Orwell’s “1984”.

Democratic Platform – Taxes

2006-05-07T12:45:00.000-04:00

I’ve met many people who call themselves Republicans only because they don’t like paying taxes. They buy into the “tax and spend Democrats” myth even though Bush and the Republican Congress have produced the most wildly reckless spending this nation has ever seen. Unfortunately, when the Democrats regain control, they will, since they are more responsible leaders, have to raise taxes to get our national balance sheet back on track. The Republicans will of course seize on this for politically advantageous sound bites.

Why don’t the Democrats tackle this issue head-on? Tell Americans that due to reckless spending by the Republicans, there will have to be tax increases. But make it clear that those increases will come from the top-end of the pay scales. From the wealthiest Americans, who have bought lobbyists, who in turn bought Congress, who in turn enacted legislation to transfer wealth away from the middle and lower classes, and into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans.

Make it clear, also, that government spending will be redirected to benefit all Americans through improved healthcare, education, national security, and so forth. Make it very clear, because a lot middle-class of “anti-taxers” think that they have benefited from Bush’s policies. They have not. But they and their children will be paying for those policies later on. It’s time for class warfare to come out of the closet. Let the super rich pull their weight.

The George Bush Effect in Georgia

2006-05-06T17:34:00.000-04:00

Today I attended my girlfriend's college graduation. She is graduating from Georgia College & State University. The procession was at 9:00 am so it was rough. Overall though, I enjoyed the ceremony very much. The guest speaker for the procession was Rev. Charles Mervin Sherrod. He is a civil rights activist, and the clinical chaplain at the Georgia State Prison in Homerville, Ga. He has a distinguished career and he's a good man.

I could see what was happening though. Georgia has become dangerously conservative over the years, and here was a black reverand, civil rights activist, of course he's going to be anti-bush doctrine too. In his speech, which I thought was well put together and, delivered superbly given that he was talking indirectly to a hostile audience. He also made some excellent points (well, he stated facts really) about poverty and the dangerous rate at which the american middle class is disappearing. I could tell the parents of the grads were getting antsy. Next, he brought up Iraq and Afghanistan in this manner:

"Are we really in Afghanistan to battle terrorism?"

"Are we really in Iraq to battle terrorism?"

The crowd leveled him. A parent shouted "YEA!" and many parents erupted in applause. Sherrod was booed and yelled at...truly disrespected. I was absolutely appalled. I wasn't surprised the parents reacted, just that they reacted so harshly. After most of the calamity was over, a woman a couple of rows behind me said, "What does this have to do with graduation?" Well lady, let me enlighten you.

I found Sherrod courageous, but he had to know he was going to be indirectly talking to a hostile audience. Luckily, he was doing was addressing the graduates, and they were very receptive to what he had to say. These kids are going to be running this country one day, and he was imposing a call to action. He was trying to get the point across that if these situations (poverty, disinterest, and bogus wars) aren't dealt with soon then we (America) are going to have a serious problem. He wasn't accusing anybody, not one time did he mention democrats, republicans, or even Bush. He didn't even draw conclusions about the two "wars". All he was doing was challenging people to think critically.

The best part of the speech was the end. When he stepped off the podium ALL of the graduates gave him a glorious standing ovation. It left me feeling enormous optimism about my generation.

When I had a chance to talk to my girlfriend she told me that when the parents showed their butts she heard murmurs among her colleagues saying things like, "He's telling the truth..." "They need to just leave, or shut up because he's telling the truth."

God bless you class of 2006. Lets take back America!

Can't Teach an Old Rumsfeld New Tricks

2006-05-05T10:00:00.000-04:00

I was reading an interview on cnn.com between Ray McGovern and Paula Zahn. I like Paula Zahn I think she can be a very tough interviewer, and she is not afraid to get in the face of who she is interviewing. McGovern was in Atlanta listening to Rumsfeld's question and answer session with the media. A woman, accusing Rumsfeld of lying, was courted out of the session by security, what has proven to be commonplace at a Rumsfeld press conference. McGovern decided to follow up on the woman's accusations, but in a more structured way. In a nutshell McGovern was simply asking pointed questions about Rumsfelds sureness about the exact locations of the WMD prior to invading Iraq. Yesterday in his news conference Rummy said he never told anyone exactly where they were at. Well, and I do believe most of us remember this, Rumsfeld said they were in Tikrit, Baghdad, North, South, East, and West of their too. Of course our troops show up to this location with nothing to show for it. What bothers me is McGovern was simply following up on a direct quote by the secretary, and after awhile the same security guys that escorted that lady out came back and tried to escort McGovern out too. Rumsfeld let him stay, but it is believed the only reason he was allowed to stay is because the TV camera was capturing the whole event. Rumsfeld didn't let McGovern stay because he was trying to be gracious, it was for personal interests. I don't understand why more people aren't making an outrage about how this administration constantly escorts reporters to the exit when they don't want to answer the question. I hope at the next White House press conference some journalist asks the new press secretary, "Why the hell do you make us leave when you can't answer our quesrtions?" It would make for a very interesting response indeed.

Cheney to the Podium Please!

2006-05-04T16:16:00.000-04:00

First, if you decide to click on the title link please take note of the huge banner ad for Ann Coulter's new book. Isn't it always enlightening to read/hear about one of our nations leaders discrediting, insulting, or ignoring another country. It really does take all the mystery out of why we are dealing with Iraq by ourselves, and why there is virtually no support for an Iran initiative (among our allies).

Can someone please take Mr. Cheney and put him back to bed?

Ole' Motherland Russia

2006-05-04T15:47:00.000-04:00

The Russians just keep making headlines. It should be obvious why they are keeping an eye on the negotiations between the UN and the Iranian nuclear program. Russia, as does China, has a huge stake in the Iranian economy. With that said I would like to bring attention to what the government appears to be doing in Russia.

I studied abroad in Russia last summer for a month. I stayed in St. Petersburg, and then spent a long weekend in Moscow. While I was in Russia I noticed some parts were trying to modernize, but as a whole I couldn't tell if the Russians really wanted to get away from communism or modernize. The new Russia definitly has a lot of work left if they want to reemerge as a world superpower. However, the Putin-led government seems to be taking Russia back into a dictatorship. Let me explain why this may not be the worst thing for the Russians. Under the communists the Russians had their neccessities (ie. shelter, food, clothing, jobs). Since the fall of the communist regime there has been little of that. The big cities (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk) may not show the ill-effects of post-communism, but the farther away from Moscow you go, so does a comfortable life. In the regions around the Siberian coal mines, and around the Urals (Stavropol) the citizens hardly have anything. Under the communists they at least had their neccessities.

I don't want to endorse communism, because as history shows us, it doesn't seem to work in practice very well. Another problem with Russia reverting back to communism, or a dictatorship, is the next-in-line may not have the best interests of the state on their mind. Lets just hope that Russia doesn't revert back into its old practices, and cross our fingers that they keep growing into a healthy country, because the world would be better off with a stable free Russia than one tangled up in dictatorship.

Free to Live

2006-05-04T00:21:00.000-04:00

Zacarias Moussaoui gets to keep his life after all. I didn't follow the trial very closely, but i can't say i'm disappointed in the decision to keep him in a maximum security prison for the rest of his life. I'm also glad to see that some families who lost loved ones during 9/11 appear to be happy with the verdict. Makes me feel that justice was indeed served. The decision to me has multiple meanings. First, it shows me that America is better than him. We aren't about kill first and ask questions later (at least at the judicial level, outside of Texas). Second, i am not completely confident in our capital punishment system. I used to support capital punishment, but nowadays i'm not so sure about that anymore. I'm not completely confident that the system ALWAYS gets the verdict correct, or the right person for that matter. It doesn't seem moral to send a person to their death if one is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Until there becomes a way to always get the person with 100% conviction then I will always question the method of sending someone to their death. Another problem I have with capital punishment is the kind of people that support it. Now, please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say everyone that supports capital punishment is this way, but the people that support it seem to also despise abortion. To me this kind of logic doesn't fly. If you are going to pick a side in the life or death debate then you should go the whole way. If you're pro-life then you should be anti-war, and anti-capital punishment. Me, I am pro-choice, pro-war (ONLY as a last resort), but anti-capital punishment.