Hillary: My Hero

I was flipping through the channels last night and I stopped at Fox News (weird or me), but only because they were talking about a new book that allegedly gives all the "dirt" on the real Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The book, The Truth About Hillary : What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, based on what this conservative media outlet said, is nothing more than conjecture and lies based on innuendo and jealousy.

All of these conservative groups make a federal case out of the fact Hillary may run for president in 2008. Is it so bad if she does? I actually wanted to her to run in 2004, but being the politician she is, she knew it's best not to go against an incumbent. I know that if Hillary does run in 2008, I will be there to support her candidacy and election with everything in me. I believe in the Clinton years, and the legacy left by Bill Clinton, but subsequently squandered and grossly mismanaged by a Bush White House.

Hillary 2008

Gotta Love Those British!

More bad news for King George about his terrible rumpus into Iraq, made possible by British government sources! Yay! This British release supports the information found in the infamous Downing Street Memo, which I discuss in my previous post.

The Eyes Only Briefing supports the facts, or lack thereof, the Bush camp used to justify a military incursion into Iraq at the peril of 1,700+ American soldiers' lives and about $200,000,000,000 of MY money! I definitely want a refund!

I have underlined some very interesting points made by the brief! Enjoy!

The text of the The Eyes Only Briefing (as provided by Democracy for America):

PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY

IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION

(A Note by Officials)

Summary

Ministers are invited to:

(1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action.

(2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD.

(3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August.

(4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002.

(5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US.

Introduction

1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.

2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.

3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support.

4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.

The Goal

5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.

US Military Planning

6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.

7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.

The Viability of the Plans

8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.

UK Military Contribution

9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.

The Conditions Necessary for Military Action

10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.

Justification

11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.

12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.

13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.

14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.

An International Coalition

15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.

16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.

17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.

A Quiescent Israel-Palestine

18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.

Benefits/Risks

19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.

Domestic Opinion

20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.

Timescales

21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.

22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that: (a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels

Impeach King George!

Okay, okay! I know that dog won't hunt! But it's worth a try. I love to look back at the Clinton impeachment and his "lies" and confusion with the definition of the word "is" and compare it with what we have now. Sure, it's wrong to lie, but at what cost did his lie influence domestic and international policies? Not very much, if any!

The now infamous Downing Street Memo has brought to light what I always suspected about the war in Iraq. It is simply unfounded and based entirely on lies! Simple as that! The British intelligence discovered that George Bush was creating a case for war in Iraq based on flagrant fabrications of the truth.

Let's analyze possible articles of impeachment for George Bush's actions:

1. Illegal invasion of a sovereign nation with the explicit intent of bringing about regime change;

2. Gross misuse of American armed forces, to wit: the invasion of Iraq and the continued armed occupation of the aforesaid;

3. Assassination of political leaders of Iraq;

4. Forced democratization of a sovereign nation, to wit: the blatant disregard to tradition and beliefs of locals;

5. Military force that led to the deaths of countless thousands of Iraqi citizens;

6. Blatant military abuses that led to the direct violation of basic human rights of Iraqi citizens on sovereign Iraqi soil;

7. Flagrant disregard for the facts as to the realistic offensive capabilities of Iraq, and any danger the aforementioned presented to the sovereignty of the United States;

8. Gross abuse of American taxpayer funds, to wit: the use of tens-of-billions of dollars to invade, occupy, and rebuild Iraq;

9. Gross misuse of the armed forces, causing irreparable harm to the lives of military personnel, and those of their families, through casualties of an illegal war;

10. Flagrant fabrication of the facts presented to the United States Congress in assurance to receive a carte blanche in the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

There, I have listed ten possible articles of impeachment that can be drawn against George W. Bush. Out of the ten, only one need be found true in order to institute impeachment by the House of Representatives and his subsequent removal by the United States Senate.

My argument is simple: You can't use the United States Congress, armed forces, and the sympathies of the American people to do what you want. The president of the United States has a sworn duty to protect the interests of all American citizens. By taking this nation to war under false pretenses he flagrantly violated his constitutional duty. It is unfortunate that one individual (i.e., King George) sees himself as unaccountable. I believe that if we do not judge him, then our future as a nation will be intermixed with other presidents who seek to misuse this awesome and dangerous power for their own ill will and gain. A precedent has been set.

It is hard to justify impeachment against a president who merely had an affair with one of his office staff and then lied to his wife about it. That is nothing compared to the squandering of $200 billion, the loss of 1,700 American soldiers' lives, the loss of untold thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children, who, in my opinion, directly suffered the greatest toll this illegal and evil military campaign has created!

The choice is simple, but I highly doubt that the Republican majority in the U.S. Congress will have the balls to stand up to a man who they worship and revere. It's plainly disgusting!

Gas Explosion!

Okay, I am truly the last person on earth to bitch about the price of gas--until now! I have to admit that, yes, I did turn a blind eye when it went up to a $1.99, but it has been less than one week since I bought gas at this price and it has in six days skyrocketed to $2.19! That is simply fucked up, to put it mildly!

I can think of lots of reasons why the price of gas is going up steadily (and frighteningly). Sure, we can blame it on the Saudis, sure we can blame it on the "sudden" demand for oil by the Chinese, but I believe that the real culprit is an apathetic government, which will let this go on unchecked if we, as the citizens, don't say something about it!

The United States government seems unwilling to put any pressure behind the the OPEC nations to increase their daily oil output for export. The OPEC nations are working less and getting richer as a result. I am not very knowledgeable about these things, but even I realize that an increased demand and a shortfall creates a exponential increase in price, and profit, for the good being sought.

My very wise mother has it right, if everyone in the United States didn't buy gas for one day, then the price would come crashing down. I know, however, that this would be impossible, but I believe it is accurate, nonetheless. The United States is the single largest importer of foreign crude, but we seem helpless to control it's price! That is simply bullshit!

I have a feeling there are some very, very wealthy oil barons sitting in Texas right now laughing it up and living large because of our misery. I also have a feeling most of them are directly connected to King George (another piece of the puzzle). And by the way, what's happening to all that cheap Iraqi oil?

Makes you wonder, huh?

Theocracy, by George!

Today, Iraq elected to become a theocracy. Hmmm...I wonder which is a better choice--a dictatorship of a single, self-indulgent individual or a dictatorship based on an ageless and deathless religion?

Certainly, we can thank King George for this faux d'etat. I suppose we brand other, very different people by own values and beliefs. It would seem that a people deeply rooted in Islam would be willing to throw off the yokes of oppression and replace Allah with a atheist state. Yes, that all makes perfect sense! WRONG!

Basically, we have created a new Iran. A nation based on the laws of Islam. Today, Iraq announced that the Shi'a sect of Islam gained the plurality of the votes in Iraq's election two weeks ago. Sure, voting is a democratic vice, but like George Bush, what you are voting into office is much more important than simply the act of doing it!

Already, the Ayotollah has come into play. I wonder who took Iran down the road of religious fantacism and anti-Americanism? It was probably those damned communists! (Ha! Ha!) I suppose we created ourselves something to deal with again in the future. Instead of a war against a man, Saddam, we'll be fighting a jihad against a faith. Surely, the ayotollahs in both Iraq and Iran can reach a treaty.

Sounds like a fabulous idea! Geeze!

Achtung! Achtung!

Last night, I was watching South Park on Comedy Central, when it occurred to me that Cartman's spoof on Adolf Hitler was exactly what is happening to us in the United States. Standing before the deer-eyed crowd, Cartman delivered a message that wasn't quite clear but it sounded super duper and the crowd agreed out of sheer ignorance to follow him and chant his anti-Semitic slogan (they though they were speaking Aramaic, like Jesus in the Passion) as the marched up Main Street, South Park, in front of Kyle's temple.

Okay, now you are asking, what the hell does this have to do with anything? But give me a moment....

That self-righteous Bush sycophant, now Secretary of State, has given the good word that Iran is next on Bush's chop. Now, that is a bit grandiose and arrogant, don't you think? Bush invaded Iraq and it is still a haven for terrorism and all-around hell hole, but he is ready to invade another,more stable, nation! What the fuck?! The disgusting part is most Americans will agree, but I have to interject my Hitler parable here....

In the late 1930s, Hitler set out to "unite" Europe under the brand of the Nazi emblem, and he said it was for their own good. It was for Austria's own good to return to the Fatherland, but what about Poland? Obviously, it was for their own good too! Basically, if you stood in the way of Hitler's agenda you were deemed an enemy and he destroyed you. France kow-towed before the might of the Nazi war machine, as Hitler's motorcade passed along the Champs d'Elysées in Paris, in order to preserve themselves and bide their time. Right!

The United States is now bringing "liberty" and "democracy" to the world. Too bad if you don't want, we're going to ram it down your goddam neck, so get over it, or die! That's the democratic way, right?

So, Iraq has fallen into the armpit of the world, thanks to King George. Iran is soon to follow...then North Korea. Wow! It sounds relatively easy, right? I don't think Iran will be so easily curbed as Iraq was. The Iranians I know would rather have a corn cob accented with jagged, rusty nails rammed up their ass before they'd give up one inch of their country for any reason, especially to a godless nation, like United States.

Is King George doing what is right? I don't think so! I think it comes down to one simple fact: if we go into Iran the United States Congress has to do what is right and proper and remove George's throne before we have our asses kicked by the rest of the world! Oh it can happen. Especially, if you are fighting a three-pronged war with an exhausted military (not to mention the war on terror! Whatever happened to that war?!).

Finally, I have to say thank you to the boys of South Park for teaching us all a valuable lesson! And thank you to Stan and Kenny for teaching us that the Passion wasn't that great of a movie! God, I thought I was the only person in America who thought this! Phew!

Synopsis: The 2004 Election

I had prophesied that the 2004 Presidential election would be even more catastrophic than the one in 2000; I was right. We re-elected (or elected) an individual whose only pressing concern is his agenda. Now, by giving this president a second (and final) term in office, he has a carte blanche to do whatever he wants! (But then again, hasn't he already been doing that?) He has no recourse other than his own conscience at this time. I have seen little empathy for the country from him to date. If it's not about busting "bad guys" in Iraq then it doesn't impress this man.

My vision for the next four years goes something like this:

The United States' involvement in Iraq will escalate. We will be required to step our presence in this war-ravaged country, but I don't think that actual numbers in troops will increase, because we're supposed to be winning, remember? If we send more troops at this late point, Bush will be sending a clear message to our allies in Palau and Iceland that the US is not as successful as verbalized many moons ago. The war in Iraq will continue as a person-on-person combat zone. It is simply fighting the individual. Except for Fallujah, I have not seen a large-scale operation in Iraq really since the war began, and was declared a success on the deck of a naval destroyer by King George. It will take the next Administration (in 2008) to complete this operation, because this Administration has no clue how to finish it (but does it really want to?).

I see domestic issues becoming even more ostracized. George Bush never cared about domestic policies in the first round, so he surely will not care about them this time. I see our economy going even further downhill, with large-scale outsourcing of American jobs to places like India and Latin America (have you called Dell lately?), which will escalate the rate of employment in this country. The irony is that the places most economically depressed are the same places that put George Bush back in the White House! People make very little sense. Sure if I am getting sick by drinking this month old milk a little more will make it all better! (That is so sad, really!)

Yes, I believe that the suffering has just begun really. We will have to see how these next four years play out. Sadly, they will not begin until January 20, 2005. We can just hope that they will go by speedily, without any large scale shifts in the world's status quo!

Republican Agenda

Tonight we're supposed to see conservative compassion at its best at the Republican National Convention. I think that the bigger issue is whether our economy and international alliances can handle four more years of George W. Bush!

Of course, if you've read my previous posts you know that the answer is undeniably, "No, we cannot!" Now we hear about President Bush's inability to say that we can win the war on terror. Then what the heck are we doing there? That is the question we, as Americans, should have asked in the beginning. We were tricked into shifting our focus from the "real" war to allowing a president to finish his daddy's fiasco a dozen or so years back! I'll spare you the rhetoric, but Saddam Hussein was very well contained in his world. He wasn't going to get out anytime soon, nor do I believe he wanted out just yet. He was still reeling from the first Gulf War and living high off of the hog as a result of an international trade embargo.

Just think, if we focused this $40-$60+ billion on the "real" war on terror we would be so far ahead of today! We should have invested $40 billion in our nation's infrastructure, rather than fighting a war that can never truly be won in Iraq! We should have invested this money in our police forces and providing our firefighters with the ability to respond quickly and effeciently to emergencies in our neighborhoods. But no, sadly, we are killing innocent civilians in a far off land. These people never asked for this war. They never understood the consequences. They were never given a chance to express themselves in any meaningful way. Even today, they are led by a government hand-picked by the United States; therefore, I ask you, is it better to trade one dictatorship for another?

I suppose the answer is yes, if you're the dictator! Therefore, things are going swimmingly on the surface. We have a puppet regime in power in Iraq, but we know who the true power behind the throne is! There is no question. But if I were George Bush (thank God I'm not), I'd be crapping in my pants right now. Instead of him correcting his mistakes, he is content to let them fester and grow bigger, day-by-day! I think it takes a big person to say, "I was wrong!" I think it is better to be open and honest with the people, rather than hold on to your crumbling political career so you can stay four more years in the White House. Whether or not George W. Bush has a moral conscience or not, he should be sensitive to the political suicide he is committing by allowing this tragedy to go on playing!

US Senator McConnell Writes To Me Today...

It's funny, I just went off on right-wing conservatism in my earlier post today, and then I went to the mailbox and received a letter from United States Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Now, that’s irony!

He writes in reply to my criticism I sent to him regarding the earlier attempt by the Senate to offer an amendment to the Constitution regarding the definition of marriage. It's a cute little letter filled with lots of big government ideals. I am going to include the text of the letter here for everyone to view:

"Some commentators have mischaracterized the recent debate regarding the definition of marriage. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the relevant facts surrounding the Senate debate on this issue.

"Due to the court ruling in Massachusetts earlier this year, every other state in the union may be forced to recognize a brand new definition of marriage. It is important to note that this Massachusetts ruling was handed down by a slim majority of un-elected and unaccountable state judges in one of the most liberal states in America. A decision by one small state's court can have such a wide-ranging impact because the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause of our Constitution requires the official acts of one state to be recognized by every other state.

"Section I of Article IV of the United States Constitution states:

"'Full faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.'

"Thus, while each state must honor the other's [sic] laws and legal rulings, Congress maintains the right to pass national legislation, and the Constitution can be amended to reflect the will of the people. In order to avoid confusion and upheaval resulting from the Massachusetts ruling being forced on other states, the Senate recently considered a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

"Amending the Constitution is a difficult process, as I believe it should be. Two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House must vote for an amendment and then three-fourths of the states must approve the amendment in order for it to become effective. on July 14, 2002, [sic] supporters of the amendment lost a procedural vote when just 48 Senators voted in favor of the amendment.

"Some have criticized the move to amend the Constitution with a simple definition of marriage. I support such a definition and strongly disagree with criticism of the amendment process. Such a process is an appropriate way to conduct this national discussion and to allow the citizens to be heard through their state and federal representatives, rather than having state judges imposetheir views on the people."

Now with all that said, what did the Senator really mean? Basically, his form letter is a rant discussing how it is somewhat acceptable to discriminate, perhaps. Now to be fair, he never came out and said that. He never even mention the homosexual community in his letter. Basically, he took the opportunity to discredit an entire state--Massachusetts! He called them "liberal" and in turn, they must be out of step with the mainstream of American values and traditions.

I must, very pointedly, disagree with the senator's disdain for the United States' judiciary. He calls them "unelected" and almost tyrannical. Perhaps, he should have read beyond Article I, Section IV, of the US Constitution and read the part about the judiciary. He asserts that the judiciary is some outside influence on our nation. I also believe he did a great misjustice to the characterization to the courts of our nation and states. He characterized them as rogue individuals, who are blind to the law, destroying the foundations of our country. Yes, they are not directly elected by the people, but they are indirectly elected by the people. Those elected individuals, such as Senator McConnell, are directly responsible for the confirmation of the president's appointments to fill judicial vacancies! This is something he conveniently left out of his letter. I am not sure, but I know that in Kentucky, certain members of the judicial branch of our state's courts are elected by the people! Perhaps, those "liberal" judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court are not so removed from the people as we would be led to believe.

I must object very strongly, Mr. Senator, on this point. The judiciary, both on the federal and state levels, are very necessary. They are instruments with members that are sworn to defend the same Constitution you took an oath to defend! They are not directly elected by the people of the United States, but neither is the president! Your argument would require us to disregard the decisions and impact of both the Executive and Judicial branches of our government.In reference to the senator's comments made about one state's laws being thrust upon the rest of the Union. Perhaps, the framers of the Constitution decided that no one state should be an island upon itself. It does not say that the other states must ratify the law passed in the other state and make it part of their constitution or statutes! Therefore, I believe Senator McConnell misused the reference to Article I, Section IV.

Finally, the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly remands all authority not directly invested to the Federal government by the Constitution to the states. Therefore, it is the prerogative of each state to implement and devise laws for itself. It is not the business of the Senate to legislate on the state level. As a result, I believe that the Senate acted inappropriately and abused powers it itself did not have during this particular legislativeprocess.

With that said, I look forward to hearing from Kentucky's other senator, Jim Bunning on this same issue!

The Risk to the Supreme Court of the United States

This morning, I received an interesting email from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). The Bush Administration seems to be pressing the need to appoint even more conservative (is that an appropriate term for these judicial nominees?) individuals for positions on the Federal judiciary.

Among these potential candidates are those lawyers that approved certain documents and correspondence from the Executive branch regarding "appropriate" conduct and rules for prisoners-of-war. Now we all know, today, what these letters contained to a certain degree. We can turn on our televisions and see the reports from soldiers who are being court-martialed for their actions at Abu-Gharib prison in Iraq.

I count us all as fortunate that King George hasn't had the opportunity to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. I fear that this stroke of good luck will soon wear out as we move toward the next session of the Supreme Court in October. Of course, we cannot allow George Bush a second shot at the presidency. He already took us to decay and ruin during his first term. I don't even want to imagine the route for our future as a nation if he is re-elected!

Now of course, we can overcome this potential hazard by electing a new administration: Kerry-Edwards this November 2! Now of course this post isn't about George Bush, perse, but it is about his politics, if they can even be called that! In the meantime, as the Bush Administration begins to wane, we must look forward to not only returning the presidency to the Democratic Party, but also the United States Senate. The United States Senate is the one body of government that can stop George Bush in his tracks if he should appoint any extreme legalist to the U.S. Supreme Court through the constitutional confirmation process.

The DSCC asked that we sign a petition making our voices heard on this very important issue. If you feel strongly about these issues, then please take a moment to sign the DSCC's petition to keep the Supreme Court from falling into potentially dangerous and conservative hands!

Orange Threat Level for Banks...What's That?

This afternoon, the Department of Homeland Security (or as it is more affectionately known, DHS) raised the threat level from yellow to orange for specific target areas in Washington, DC, New York City, and northern New Jersey (who knew?).

Now I ask you, one American to another, what does these cotton-pickin' colors mean, in all honesty? We've been at the yellow (or elevated) threat level for the better part of three years now. That means very little to me. I wonder what it would take to get us down to one of the other colors, like green? Maybe a global monopolization of all the world's nations by the United States. Of course, then we can be at the green threat level and live in More's utopian society.

After visiting the DHS' website, I discovered that yellow means "elevated." So yeah, that's a nice fancy word, but what does it mean for me as the "average American." Their definition of "elevated" basically requires us to become vigilantes. We should be watchful of our neighbors and neighborhoods to make sure they aren't engaged in illegal, or subversive, activities (such as being active in the Kerry-Edwards campaign).

Now this all might sound nice, like apple pie, but it reminds me of Nazi Germany. In Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, Hitler's ever-loveable Gestapo (gestalt staats-polizie), whom even Hitler feared, and the SS (Schuetzstaffel) were loose and terrorizing the German people. These organizations, too, were built around intelligence gathering (deja vu) of the most secret type. Not only did they gather information, they single-handedly destroyed the lives of those that stood in their way, or they deemed as subversive to the Fatherland (i.e., Adolf Hitler). How on earth did we get to this? I know--because both of these Nazi organizations were created for the betterment of the German people. They served as a liason between the people and the highest levels of German government. They sought out plots to overthrow the Nazi regime and then those people were sent to concentration camps (sort of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba).

Now I'm not saying our King George is an Adolf Hitler-type (he doesn't have the intelligence really), but some of the ideas are sort of the same. Like the correlation between an ultra-secretative intelligence service (like the DHS) and the Gestapo and SS; all of which are/were dedicated to the security of the homeland!

Now with that said, I don't doubt that the DHS can serve as an honorable and useful governmental agency for our country. This agency, however, must not be allowed to step outside of constitutional and legal considerations. The minute one person begins to use it for their own ill-gain, then it is no longer a viable organization and it must not be allowed to succeed. Perhaps, this all sounds like a conspiracy theory, but maybe not. Who knows? Only time will tell. But the minute they come knocking my door down in the middle of the night for writing this post, then I will be avenged!

It only happens once in a...blue moon!

On Saturday night, July 31, we will experience a blue moon. I had always heard this phrase and idiom used throughout my life, but I really didn't come to appreciate it's true meaning until a few years back.

It would seem that a blue moon is exactly what it's name implies. An event that happens infrequently and does command a degree of attention. It seems that two full moons in the same month is quite odd. I suppose that this happened this year because of leap-year, but according to the CNN website, it happens every 32 months--so about one in three years. Even though, I think back to the time when we had two in the same year! According to the website, it was in 1999. It's odd that I would remember something so strange!

Maybe I should go get my head examined for remembering such a weird fact, but it could come in use if I'm ever on Jeopardy!

CNN's F*Word Faux Pas

Last night as I watched the finale of the Democratic National Convention, I was pleased with the entire outcome of the event. I was happy with John Kerry's inspiring acceptance speech of hope and direction. I was taken by the delegates' energy and engagement.

At the end of the events, however, they were releasing the balloons and confetti from the top of the Fleet Center, when CNN decided to carry the voice of the event's organizer (why I have no clue). It would have been otherwise uneventful if the balloons and confetti operated within the parameters set by the event's coordinators.

The guy speaking in the background was becoming obviously upset by the fact the balloons were not being released as quickly as he had anticipated. At this point, I believe it would have behooved CNN to terminate the live audio feed, but they allowed it to continue uncensored. By this point, he had already said the benign word "hell" (I think). His voice was getting more aggravated, but the live feed continued, until he belted out something along the lines of: What the fuck is going on up there?

At this time, CNN immediately cut the live audio feed. I only heard CNN anchor Judy Woodruff later elude to the fact that some "profanity" might have been used. Oh Judy, yes it had been! I heard it and who knows how many other millions did. Although, the word doesn't personally offend me (I've been known to use it as need arises), I am sure that some fall-out will have to occur as a result! I am thinking back to Janet Jackson and then other nationally televised events. As of now, I haven't heard anything said about it...yet! But I may have missed it earlier today or late last night.

Only time will tell if it is simply ignored or if it balloons (pardon the pun) into something larger. I was afraid that it might overshadow the Democratic National Convention, but they cannot be held responsible for the obvious mistake on CNN's part.

Fox News...Balanced?

I was sitting here watching Al Gore to the Democratic National Convention in Boston just a little bit ago on CNN, and I simply turned the channel over to Fox News...guess what I found?

I found Fox News not even covering Al Gore's message. They claim to have "fair and balanced" reporting, but they are unwilling to cover a major political event, and a major political figure (even Fox News has to admit that Al Gore won the popular vote for president in 2000). I will be interested to see if Fox News covers the opening of the Republican National Convention next month. If they do, then we know they are truly not fair or balanced. Indeed, they will be biased and deflated.

So in the words of Teresa Heinz, Fox News can shove it! 

Shove it!

I have found myself laughing quite a bit at all the hoop-la surrounding Teresa Heinz's invitation to a Pittsburgh reporter to "shove it!"

It was very refreshing to see the confrontation as put out on many media outlets. She is a very outspoken and polarizing figure. She says what she wants and means what she says. You don't see many politicians (or their spouses) telling the media exactly what they think of them and their tactics. Yet, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry stands out from the crowd, and I adore her for that!

One thing that the media probably will not tell is the fact that this particular newspaper is a rather conservative publication. (You certainly won't hear that on Fox News!) In addition, the newspaper has perhaps misconstrued the relationships between the Kerry and Heinz families. Let's face it: if someone is dogging you, you'd probably stand up and say more than simply "shove it!" I know that I would! I think I am a calm and patient person--to an extent. Beyond that, I can say or do almost anything. Sure, I'll probably wake up tomorrow and regret it, but at least the world knows where I stand and what I think about a broad laundry list of issues, both personal and public.

In the end, Teresa Heinz-Kerry deserves a pat on the back. She has put in many long and arduous hours, I am sure as she is bussed and flown from one shore of America to the other. Such a personal sacrifice can only be rewarded and adored. I salute her for her ability to contain herself, yet express herself adequately as the moments and situations dictate. 

Let's Update the Electoral College

Dear Founding Fathers,

I am writing to you as a citizen of the Revolution of 1776--albeit, 228 years later. I have little complaint about the framework of government you created so long ago in our Constitution; however, I must address one fallacy it has created in modern times.

I am speaking specifically of the Electoral College in the selection of the Executive of our federal government. Why was it so important to keep the people out of the direct selection of the president? Why must we be so removed from the process of an act that so directly affects us in our daily lives? I agree that the presidency as you envisioned it is nothing as it exists today. Yes, it has wildly stepped outside of its Constitional bounds, but what can we expect when we give one individual so much power?

Could the Executive Branch have been more effective as a committee of three elected individuals? Yes, I believe that this is the case. By having more than one individual in the position we eliminate the over-zealous nature of political parties and the arrogance of people who see no limits to their power.  I digress, however, from the original intent of this letter.

There are lessons that we as the oldest existing democracy may learn from those nations that have evolved and adopted our form of government--the fledgling democracies of our world. Specifically, they entrust the people to directly select their executive from a broad selection of candidates. Although, they are highly political, no one group or state is disenfranchised by the population of any state, regardless of its size. Yes, the power and independence of the states were highly politicized during your time, but I argue, also, that this is no longer a viable consideration. The states exist on a specific level that does not require them to compete on the national level.

Gentlemen, the system you envisioned and designed is not an honest system today. Simply put, we must discontinue its use and amend the Constitution to address and adapt to the needs of a modern society that demands direct involvment in the selection of its leadership.

We have a system that allows the top two candidates to control the vast majority of power in the selection process. Third party candidates are only minor (or in the case of the 2000 presidential election major annoyances) contenders. In a modern democracy, all cadidates, regardless of the number in the field, stand equally for election. In addition, they provide for "run-off" elections for the top two candidates who win the majority of the votes, so that the best leader may be selected.

An example is the 2000 presidential election (again). Three candidates battled for the right to represent the United States of America as its president. Two candidates actually stood as strong candidates garnishing the vast majority of the votes cast in all fifty states (yes, we've grown). One candidate won the popular vote, but he is not the president because of the archaic and puzzling system instituted by you so long ago. In a modern democracy, the two top candidates would then have entered another election to see who would be president. In essence, your system failed the American people. They are represented today by a president who did not win a popular mandate from the nation he purpoits to represent; therefore, the people were disenfranchised on a national and epidemic scale. This must never happen again!

Therefore, the purpose of my letter has been explained. I would hope that the great document--the Constitution of the United States of America--you envisioned over two centuries ago can grow and evolve to meet the challenges of the American people today!

Sincerely,

An American Citizen

2004 Democratic National Convention

Okay...here is the part where my rather liberal ideals come into play--for that I do not apologize.

I read about the reports of people who say that they can't get visibility for protesting and various other activities (who knows). I argue that the security of the individuals attending and directly participating in the Convention are paramount to the needs of those who stand on the fringe of society in their desire to indirectly participate in the activities in Boston.

Firstly, if they were up to legal participation it would not be necessary to keep them on the fringes. Furthermore, I submit that they individuals the say be protesting against are the sitting administration in Washington. They should impede on the fascist policies of King George, not those seeking to turn around America's image and return us to an honorable international course. I believe that the Democratic Convention is so far removed from the atmosphere of disdain and discord in America that we should be listening to what the delegates have to say, rather than try to drown out their voice. Of course, I realize these protestors and trouble-makers are probably Republicans or other right-wing extremists.

I admit that I will not feel this disturbed during the Republican National Convention in New York City next month. Is this hypocrisy? I don't care!  But thanks for labeling me a hypocrite...I love that word!

Martha Stewart: My Gracious Hero

Grace and civility have a goddess and her name is Martha Stewart. Few Americans can be called icons, but I believe Martha falls into this category with ease and charm. I have always admired Martha Stewart. She took home ec and made it a thing of elegance and functionality. Her ideas are neo-chic, with a hint of grandma's tradition thrown in the mix.
 
Martha has suffered a road that many of us can only imagine traveling. I have felt since day one that she has received more criticism and disdain than is necessary for something she was charged and eventually found guilty of doing. Previously, ImClone is a company that 99.9% of Americans had never heard of and could care less about. I, for one, am one of these Americans! Of course, there are worse crimes that one can commit, but the government seems most concerned with those that term a tidy profit for them in the end. Martha, a billionaire in her prime, was targeted for "dumping" a piddly (well it was to her) amount of stock after receiving a so-called inside-tip from her stock broker.
 
I'll be happy to see this all this hub-bub laid to rest in the media, but no more than Martha will be, I'm sure. I'll be happy to see Martha cooking up delicious cakes in television kitchen, rather than seeing her in a tacky orange jump suit! Nevertheless, I hope to see Martha beat her five month prison sentence on appeal.
 
Go Martha!

Civil Rights for the 21st Century

America was founded over 228 years ago to protect the minority from discrimination and protect our "inalienable rights." Today, we stand before a new tyranny. It is a tyranny of a majority, not found in the greater community, perse, but in the United States Senate and the White House. In due time, the Senate will vote on whether or not an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is necessary for the so-called "protection" of marriage as an institution between a man and woman.

Yesterday, I wrote both of my conservative Republican senators in the United States Senate (Senator Mitch McConnell is a sponsor of this legislation, so you know how far my comments went) regarding this important issue. I said that this form of discrimination is like the segregation and universal suffrage African-Americans fought against in the 1950s and 1960s in the South. It is like the suffrage movement of the late-19th and early-20th centuries that brave and vocal women championed. It is a disgruntled group standing up against "the man." In near years to come we will look at this movement with regret and horror. We are a nation founded upon our diversity. We must embrace this diversity or we can no longer consider ourselves as an independent and democratic people. We will be no different than those nations we lash out against for their abhorrant policies. In essence, we will be hypocrites defining for the world what a true democracy is. Democracy will be defined as an oligarchy that appeases the majority and discriminates wholly against its minority groups.

Many proponents of this blatant anti-gay legislation are fond of quoting the Bible for their reasoning. They say that marriage has always existed between one male and one female, and we must protect it. They say, we must defend historical precedent. But instead of using obscure and religious texts as a viable defense, I believe that we must look no further than our own Constitution and Declaration of Independence for the answers we seek. You see, we were not founded as a theocracy, a government created upon the sole principles of a religious doctrine and text as our authoritative document for day-to-day existence, but we are a nation founded upon democratic principles that looks to the rule of civil law for our legal guidance, not the rule of the fanatic mob.

Either we are a nation founded upon the creed that "all men [and women] are created equal" or we are not. Simply, the United States Senate today is testing this hypothesis, and we will be judged based upon this single act of cowardice and ignorance by history. The president of the United States is reaching out and stirring up a little trouble. He is looking for a way to redeem himself, not by an act of unity, but by division. He is playing upon senseless notions of hatred and discrimination. Surely, the homosexual community is the last acceptable group to discriminate against in our country. We have come so far, yet we are so far from the finish line. We, as a nation, have said that racial discrimination is unacceptable, and the denial of suffrage to a group of people is unacceptable. Is it such a far leap to accept that every group is entitled to live their lives as they see fit? Will we give the government another bit of our freedom? Will we allow the government to dictate whom we select to love and cherish?

I applaud groups like Moveon.org for their ceaseless work to protect our freedoms from right wing conservative interest groups. This group is working through their United, Not Divided project to provide a voice to Americans who are disturbed by this movement to use our democratic source of government--the U.S. Constitution--to discriminate against a group of Americans. I have joined Moveon.org's project to fight back and protect our great civil liberties from an administration that seems motivated to the destruction of our greatest of all institutions, freedom!

Our freedom is defined by the ability for all Americans to make choices and set goals in life for themselves. Freedom is something that we all take for granted, but we must protect it. It is a foundation that we have always embraced and accepted throughout our history as a nation. In our moments of greatest national despair we have allowed freedom to be our beacon of hope and motivation. Freedom cannot, and must not, become a right only for those who support the government. It must be protected as a fundamental institution that is guaranteed to every citizen, no matter his or her race, religion, handicap, political views, or sexual orientation. By accepting the discrimanation of one group, we are all discriminated against. We give the government precedent to discriminate again and again. We give the government the right to use our Constitution--a document of freedom and liberty--as a tool for oppression and tyranny!

Think about it!

Learned Helplessness on a National Scale

Learned helplessness is a psychological term that is often associted with the elderly. It is a mental condition where an individual feels he or she is unable to complete a task they could in the passed without the help of others. Many times this can be observed in such places as nursing homes and to a lesser degree in hospitals. People who rely entirely on another individual (or group) to take care of their most basic of needs.

Iraq is a nation of people who are being taught learned helplessness on a national scale. They play little if any role in the reconstruction of their nation. The Iraqi people have another nation, the United States, that is willing to complete this task for them. Before the American invasion of Iraq, these people were oppressed and apathetic. They could only see what was in front of their faces; a people unable to dream, only follow orders. I fear the United States is creating another environment where the Iraqis can only see what is before them, and unable to see the greater picture and opportunites they have in a sovereign nation in which they control exclusively. Instead of allowing the Iraqi government to create a viable security/police/military apparatus, we see an increase in American military presence. We are teaching them that they need not worry about fighting these battles for themselves when they can rely on us to complete the task for them.

That is what I mean by learned helplessness on a epidemic scale. This isn't grandma or grandpa in the nursing home in the next county. This is a culture, a society that cannot logically fend for itself. A society of infants that are looking to us for their survival in a post-Saddam environment. We have created a situation where we must take care of these people's future. This is simply not feeding a group of people, but providing for them the principles of democracy in an environment of disdain and mistrust.

We have given over one-thousand American lives to securing this nation; however, we really have gotten no closer to solving this problem than the day the occupation of Iraq began. Instead of Saddam Hussein and Republican Guard, we are facing militants and guerilla warfare. We know that guerilla warfare can be a viable alternative to standard military combat, just consider the American Revolution!

I think the US government must return more autonomy to the Iraqi government. There must be an immediate push for the creation of Iraqi military and police forces. This will secure the sovereignty of the new government in a way that it can protect and legitimize itself. In the final idealistic Iraq, the people will be able to care for themselves in every way a sovereign nation can and must, without the polarizing effects of a foreign power dominating it! That is true independence from tyranny.