A Low Class, Ignorant Attack On Christianity

The Blasphemy Challenge

I have a lot of friends and colleagues from different religious persuasions, including a few that are atheists out of principle. I respect the religious, or non-religious, views of most of my friends, colleagues and family. My own flair for evangelizing my faith is by the deeds, as well as my efforts to be fair, generous, and respectful of others.

I don't always succeed at following the tenets of my faith. There are times when I am cranky towards my wife. I sometimes lose patience, even with those I respect the most. Sometimes I swear like a division of sailors or a platoon of marines. I don't always make it to church, and I do hold some views that are contrary to the positions of my church leaders out of conscience and my own reading of Scripture.

When I engage in debates on science, religion, philosophy or the status of our culture, I try to be reasonable in my efforts. If I disagree with someone, I try not to go off on ad hominem attacks. Again, I don't always succeed, but I try. (My ability to do this with Mr. Bush and his cronies is tested every time I read the news.) If I do engage in ad hominem attacks, the attack is based upon the behavior and actions offered by the people to whom I am addressing (i.e. calling Bush a fascist and the majority of his cabinet a gang of fascist thugs because of their actions that support those conclusions).

But the effort to disparage all of Christianity offered by the so-called "Rational Response Squad" on the "Blasphemy Challenge" web site, is neither rational, reasonable or tolerable. I do not say this out of defense for the beliefs I hold. If my beliefs could not withstand such irrational attacks, it would not be much of a faith. But I say this out of concern for the method in which these folks have chosen to put their views into the world.

These folks do not seek to persuade people of the reasonableness of their position and views. Instead, they prefer to go on the attack not only of the faith, the tenets or doctrines offered by the churches, or the history of the Christian religion--all of which can be justifiably attacked in some way and on some legitimate grounds--but on the very nature and integrity of the people that make a decision to believe.

I won't engage in apologetics for my faith or for organized religion. Many more qualified people have written appropriate apologetics throughout the centuries. I need not try to better such scholars as Augustine, Luther, Aquinas, Calvin, Wesley, Beckett or others. Nor do I need to defend such hypocrites as Falwell, Robertson, Swaggart, Roberts, Jones, Coulter, Limbaugh, et al.

But the manner in which these so-called rational people choose to entice people to reject Christianity--and it is specifically mainstream Christianity that they are attacking--is ludicrous, ruse, vulgar and asinine.

I won't even dignify these folks by quoting anything from their web site... But I urge you, no matter what religious or anti-religious views you hold, to approach the issues with reason and respect. Maybe then we can live, work and play together without the hatred, prejudice and outright idiocy.

Bush Is Not Above the Law... But He Thinks He Is

Bush Is Not Above the Law

My call for impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez and Rice is based on my reading and understanding of our Constitution, our statutory laws, and the moral and ethical issues raised by Bush's conduct while holding our highest political office.

Apparently, I am not the only one that believes, based on facts and events, that President Bush and his cronies are not above the law. Impeachment is warranted. Impeachment should be pursued for the good of our nation. It undermines our nation and our way of life when we let this man remain in office.

LAST August, a federal judge found that the president of the United States broke the law, committed a serious felony and violated the Constitution. Had the president been an ordinary citizen — someone charged with bank robbery or income tax evasion — the wheels of justice would have immediately begun to turn. The F.B.I. would have conducted an investigation, a United States attorney’s office would have impaneled a grand jury and charges would have been brought.

But under the Bush Justice Department, no F.B.I. agents were ever dispatched to padlock White House files or knock on doors and no federal prosecutors ever opened a case.

The ruling was the result of a suit, in which I am one of the plaintiffs, brought against the National Security Agency by the American Civil Liberties Union. It was a response to revelations by this newspaper in December 2005 that the agency had been monitoring the phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans for more than four years without first obtaining warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

In the past, even presidents were not above the law. When the F.B.I. turned up evidence during Watergate that Richard Nixon had obstructed justice by trying to cover up his involvement, a special prosecutor was named and a House committee recommended that the president be impeached.

And when an independent counsel found evidence that President Bill Clinton had committed perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case, the impeachment machinery again cranked into gear, with the spectacle of a Senate trial (which ended in acquittal).

Laws are broken, the federal government investigates, and the individuals involved — even if they’re presidents — are tried and, if found guilty, punished. That is the way it is supposed to work under our system of government. But not this time.

Last Aug. 17, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit issued her ruling in the A.C.L.U. case. The president, she wrote, had “undisputedly violated” not only the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, but also statutory law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Enacted by a bipartisan Congress in 1978, the FISA statute was a response to revelations that the National Security Agency had conducted warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. To deter future administrations from similar actions, the law made a violation a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.

Yet despite this ruling, the Bush Justice Department never opened an F.B.I. investigation, no special prosecutor was named, and there was no talk of impeachment in the Republican-controlled Congress.

German Prosecutors Seeking Justice From US Operatives

Warrants Issued for 13 CIA Operatives in Germany Kidnapping

Somebody within the German governmental hierarchy has awakened to the violation of German and international laws. I would hope that our own leaders would realize that if we fail to turn over the operative involved we open up ourselves to the same sort of treatment by not only European nations, but any nation that seeks revenge upon us.

What kind of freedom do we advocate when we act outside of the law?

German prosecutors on Wednesday said they have issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA operatives suspected of kidnapping a German citizen in the Balkans in 2004 and taking him to a secret prison in Afghanistan before realizing several months later that they had the wrong person.

The German arrest warrants, filed in Munich, are the second case in which prosecutors have filed criminal charges against CIA employees involved in counterterrorism operations in Europe. European investigators acknowledge that it is highly unlikely the U.S. spies -- most of whom worked undercover or using false identities -- would ever be handed over to face trial. But the prosecutions have strained U.S.-European relations and underscored deep differences over how to fight terrorism.

Italian prosecutors have also issued arrest warrants for 25 CIA operatives and a U.S. Air Force officer, alleging that they kidnapped an Egyptian-born radical cleric off the streets of Milan in 2003 and took him to Cairo, where he claims he was tortured. A court in Milan is presently considering whether to press ahead with indictments of the CIA officers and try them in absentia later this year.

Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld, the chief prosecutor in Munich, said 13 CIA operatives were wanted on charges of kidnapping and inflicting bodily harm on Khaled el Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent. Masri has said he was detained by border guards while en route to a holiday in Macedonia and was handed over in January 2004 to the CIA, which secretly flew him to Afghanistan and interrogated him about his alleged ties to Islamic radicals in Germany.

After five months in captivity, Masri was flown back to the Balkans and dumped on a hillside in Albania. German prosecutors were skeptical at first after he came to them with a bizarre-sounding story about how he was kidnapped, but they later corroborated many parts of his account.

At a news conference in Augsburg, Germany, Masri's attorney called the arrest warrants "a great success" and said his client was "very satisfied" with the outcome of the investigation.

Yet the attorney, Manfred Gnjidic, said he realized it was doubtful that German authorities would be able to track down any of the suspects and bring them to trial.

Apparently, The Waste, Fraud & Profiteering Is Bigger Than We Thought

U.S. Wasted Millions in Iraq Aid, Inquiry Says

As we have been collecting reports of waste, profiteering, theft and fraud in Iraq, we now learn that what we suspected may be only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The latest investigative and auditing reports indicate tens of millions in fraud, including weapons theft, misappropriation by US and Iraqi officials, and so much more... Our nation is in trouble because we are spending our tax dollars, and the money we owe interest on, in ways that do not benefit our nation or our interests overseas.

Major U.S. companies with multimillion-dollar contracts for Iraq reconstruction are being forced to devote 12.5 percent of their expenses for security due to spiraling violence in the region, investigators said Wednesday.

Meanwhile, tens of millions of U.S. dollars have been wasted elsewhere in Iraq reconstruction aid, some of it on an Olympic-size swimming pool ordered up by Iraqi officials for a police academy that has yet to be used.

The quarterly audit by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, is the latest to paint a grim picture of waste, fraud and frustration in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $300 billion and left the region near civil war.

Investigators: Millions in Iraq Aid Wasted

The U.S. government wasted tens of millions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction aid, including scores of unaccounted-for weapons and a never-used camp for housing police trainers with an Olympic-size swimming pool, investigators say.

The quarterly audit by Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, is the latest to paint a grim picture of waste, fraud and frustration in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has cost taxpayers more than $300 billion and left the region near civil war.

The Bush Approach To Environment, Alternative Energy & Being Control Freaks

White House Interfered In Climate Change Report, Lawmaker Says

Despite the surprisingly green endorsement of alternative fuels and environmental issues, even to the point of finally admitting that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, President Bush and company are still trying to manipulate and control how we handle the crises.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee launched into its oversight role Tuesday with a hearing on potential administration interference in communicating the results of federal scientific work.

The hearing - the committee's first in this session of Congress -- focused largely on a bipartisan investigation into allegations that the White House Council on Environmental Quality has suppressed the findings of government climate scientists. Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Tom Davis, R-Va., now the chairman and ranking member respectively, initiated the review during the last Congress.

The investigation focused in part on records surrounding a 2003 Environmental Protection Agency report, and how the draft report was edited by the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. The committee sought those materials in July 2006 under federal sunshine laws, Waxman said. Most records have not been provided to the committee, he said, but staffers were given the chance to view some of the materials without retaining copies.

Waxman reported that according to staffers' notes, the White House made numerous, significant edits to the EPA document. Officials from the president's Office of Science and Technology Policy suggested that a discussion of human health and ecological impacts of climate change be deleted, he said, and OMB officials urged that EPA add "balance" to the climate section, prompting that "global climate change has beneficial effects as well as adverse impacts."

A Faith-Based Fuel Initiative

It appears that all the talk about alternative fuels, energy conservation and addressing global warming is an issue that the Bush administration wants our "faith" and trust so they can manage these issues. But a few congress critters have an idea of putting Bush's words, faith and agenda to the test by speeding up the process a bit.

In 1975, after the oil embargo, Congress approved the most successful energy-saving measure this country has ever seen: the Corporate Average Fuel Economy system, known as CAFE, which set minimum mileage standards for cars. Within 10 years, automobile efficiency had virtually doubled, to 27.5 miles per gallon in 1985 from just over 14 miles per gallon in 1976.

The mileage standards are still 27.5 m.p.g. Except for minor tweaks, Congress has refused to raise fuel efficiency requirements or close a gaping loophole that lets S.U.V.’s and pickups be measured by a more lenient standard.

Americans who heard President Bush’s State of the Union address, including his pledge to reduce America’s gasoline consumption, can be forgiven for thinking he was finally ready to change that. But all Mr. Bush really asked for was the authority to set mileage standards in a different way. Rather than requiring companies to meet an average fuel-efficiency standard, balancing gas savers against gas guzzlers, he would assign targets model by model, based on factors like size and weight.

As for what those new targets might be, Mr. Bush would leave it to his secretary of transportation to decide. And he asked the country to take it on faith that this new measurement system, combined with technological advances, would lead to annual mileage improvements of 4 percent a year.

Our fear is that this program will take far too long to get going, if it gets going at all. Like Congress, the Transportation Department has been notoriously solicitous of the automobile industry.

But there’s a way Congress can get moving. Senator Barack Obama plans to reintroduce a bill that would set a 4 percent annual increase in efficiency as a target, just what Mr. Bush says he wants. The bill would also give both the Transportation Department and the manufacturers considerable flexibility. But the department could not deviate from the target unless it could demonstrate that the costs outweighed the benefits.

Even that is too much wiggle room for lawmakers like Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Edward Markey. While allowing for administrative flexibility, they would require a firm fleetwide standard of 35 m.p.g. with no escape hatches. But given the long Congressional stalemate, the Obama bill could be an important first step. It commands some bipartisan support, and unlike Mr. Bush’s approach, it promises real as opposed to hypothetical results.

Bush Directive Increases Sway on Regulation

Of course, in the tradition of grabbing for more power, authority and control--in keeping with the "control freak methodology" that has been the mainstay of the Bush presidency--President Bush has issued orders that give him, and those that pledge allegiance to him rather than our nation and the Constitution, more direct control over how regulatory matters are handled. If he can't win by signing statements, grabs for more executive power than allowed by the Constitution, he will try to win by executive orders. This approach, however, circumvents the input of experts that do not agree with the Bush vision and entrenched views, negates input and feedback from consumers and citizens, and leans toward making things easier for big businesses and those that follow the false GOP claim to "smaller government" and less regulatory mismanagement.

President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

In an interview on Monday, Jeffrey A. Rosen, general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, “This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable.”

Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush.

Consumer, labor and environmental groups denounced the executive order, saying it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies’ efforts to protect the public.

Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations.

The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies government intervention.

RELATED NEWS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

World Scientists Near Consensus on Warming

Scientists from across the world gathered Monday to hammer out the final details of an authoritative report on climate change that is expected to project centuries of rising temperatures and sea levels unless there are curbs in emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.

Scientists involved in writing or reviewing the report say it is nearly certain to conclude that there is at least a 90 percent chance that human-caused emissions are the main factor in warming since 1950. The report is the fourth since 1990 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is overseen by the United Nations.

The report, several of the authors said, will describe a growing body of evidence that warming is likely to cause a profound transformation of the planet.

Three large sections of the report will be forthcoming during the year. The first will be a summary for policy makers and information on basic climate science, which is expected to be issued on Friday.

Among the findings in recent drafts:

* - The Arctic Ocean could largely be devoid of sea ice during summer later in the century.

* - Europe’s Mediterranean shores could become barely habitable in summers, while the Alps could shift from snowy winter destinations to summer havens from the heat.

* - Growing seasons in temperate regions will expand, while droughts are likely to ravage further the semiarid regions of Africa and southern Asia.

In the Rockies, Pines Die and Bears Feel It

Jesse Logan retired in July as head of the beetle research unit for the United States Forest Service at the Rocky Mountain Laboratory in Utah. He is an authority on the effects of temperature on insect life cycles. That expertise has landed him smack in the middle of a debate over protecting grizzly bears.

You just never know where the study of beetles will take you.

Dr. Logan seems, in fact, to be on a collision course with the federal government, in the debate over whether to lift Endangered Species Act protections from the grizzly bears in and around Yellowstone National Park.

The grizzly population in the greater Yellowstone area is estimated to be at least 600. The population is centered in the park proper, federal scientists say, where it has reached its likely natural maximum and has leveled off. But in adjoining stretches of national forest, the number of grizzlies is continuing to go up by 4 percent to 7 percent a year. Their resurgence in the past 50 years is why the federal government announced in 2005 the start of proceedings to take them off the endangered or threatened species list.

Dr. Logan enters the fray on the question of what grizzly bears eat, how much of it will be available in the future, and where. All that, he says, hinges on the mountain pine beetle and the whitebark pine.

The tree (Pinus albicaulis) has no value as commercial timber. But gnarled and bushy whitebark pines anchor the timberline in much of the West. They hold the soil for other vegetation to get a foothold, and they trap snow, prolonging the spring runoff.

They are slow-growing trees and may not even bear cones until they are a half-century old. In the late 19th century, the naturalist John Muir counted rings in a weatherbeaten example high in California’s Sierra Nevada. Its trunk was just six inches across. To his astonishment it was 426 years old.

The beetle’s usual targets were once midaltitude lodgepole and ponderosa pines. But it has begun extending its range as it adapts to warming temperatures in the Rockies — two degrees since the mid-1970s. As a result, it has been killing whitebark pines at altitudes in the Rockies and the Cascades of Oregon and Washington that would have once been too cold.

Beetle attacks have added to the toll taken by a disease called white pine blister rust. In the northern Rockies, the beetle infests 143,000 acres. Entire forest vistas, like that at Avalanche Ridge near Yellowstone National Park’s east gate, are expanses of dead, gray whitebarks.

Some Good News (And A Little Bad News) On Homeland Security

In my e-mail this morning there were a lot of reports that indicate that there may be some overall improvements in the way we are approaching Homeland Security, at least from the management, logistics and technology perspectives. If we can add in some rational approaches regarding civil liberties and our fundamental principles, that would put us on the right track toward making our nation not only safer, but also in keeping with our status as the "bedrock of democracy and freedom."

THE GOOD NEWS

Departments Get Serious About Border Technologies

The departments of State and Homeland Security have made significant progress toward improving border technologies, according to a summary of accomplishments the government said it made in the last year.

House Panel Aims For Fresh Look At Homeland Security

As the new Congress revs into gear, Democrats and Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee are likely to take a fresh look at programs dealing with biometrics, cyber security, technology innovation, communications, cargo-scanning equipment and border security, according to sources, aides and lawmakers.

Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, for example, continues to champion the need for Congress to provide state and local governments with billions of dollars in new funds to purchase and deploy emergency communications equipment that can work across jurisdictions.

Thompson, D-Miss., told the U.S. Conference of Mayors on Wednesday that "the interoperability problem costs well into the billions," and Congress must "be willing to provide the long-term sustainable funding necessary to develop interoperable communication networks."

Republicans on the committee agree that more needs to be done to improve interoperability, but they argue that Congress already established a $1 billion grant program for the effort under the Commerce Department. That program is expected to start awarding grants later this year.

House Member Puts Rail Security At Top Of His Panel's Agenda

I have been ranting and raving about port and railway security issues since just after the events of 9-11, and discussing these issues since the middle of the 1990s. If this is a serious effort to rein in railway security, I am all for it... But if it turns out to be just some political posturing, then shame on the Dems for allowing it.

House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson Monday laid out a sweeping agenda for the coming months, saying the first big piece of legislation his panel will tackle will be focused on beefing up security on passenger and freight rail systems.

Thompson said the legislation his committee will produce would establish federal standards and oversight for both passenger rail mass transit systems and freight rail systems, especially those that transport hazardous materials.

"We're going to bring the federal government into it to provide the necessary direction," Thompson told reporters. "We absolutely need to move toward having the federal government coming up with some uniform approaches for rail security."

Senate Committee Plans More Homeland Security Oversight

If only it were not Joe Liberman at the helm of this effort. "Connecticut Joe" is more of a Republican than he is a Democrat, as is demonstrated by his support for the Bush Doctrine and the way the Bush administration is conducting NSA spying and operations in Iraq. At least there are other voices on the panel to keep him from running amuck.

Newly minted Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut is off to an active start in his new role.

He already has held a hearing to examine how best to implement unfulfilled recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and plans to pass a bill to address those issues out of his committee by the end of the month.

"We're definitely better protected than we were before 9/11, but we are not as well protected as we want and need to be," he said during the Jan. 9 hearing.

Lockheed Martin To Provide High-Tech IDs At Ports

The Transportation Security Administration has awarded a contract to supply high-tech identification cards at ports to Lockheed Martin headquarters in Bethesda, Md., according to sources familiar with the choice.

The Washington Post reports that the initial value of the contract, which involves issuing ID cards to 850,000 maritime workers, currently sits at $70 million. But the contract could prove to be more valuable if it leads to related deals because ID technology is a fast-growing sector for government contractors.

The ID program was initially supposed to provide transportation workers with cards embedded with microchips by the end of 2003, but it has been bogged down with technology glitches and privacy concerns.

Lockheed has 18 months to finish deploying the cards.

OMB Management Chief Welcomes Democratic Oversight

Key committees involved in oversight of government activities are preparing to hold their first hearings this session of Congress, and the Bush administration's management chief says he is looking forward to working with the new Democratic leaders.

Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, said last week that he has met with the chairmen of the House Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees. Both sides agreed there are flaws that need to be addressed, he said.

Coast Guard Modernization Program Faces Increased Oversight

Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen told lawmakers Tuesday he would hold agency personnel and contractors accountable for improving performance in the service's troubled modernization program known as Deepwater.

In testimony before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Allen acknowledged serious problems with the mammoth program to replace its aging equipment. The program is being run by the Integrated Coast Guard Systems, a joint venture of defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.

Allen said he took seriously a withering report on the acquisition of the National Security Cutter, the cornerstone of the Deepwater fleet, by Richard Skinner, the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department, the Coast Guard's parent agency.

AND NOW THE BAD NEWS

GAO: Guard May Lack Gear Needed For Domestic Crises

As a former member of a National Guard unit, I can attest to the fact that the Guard is often an after thought when it comes to equipment and training. The fact that the Guard is not fully equipped or adequately trained raises a lot of concern over deploying these troops overseas in combat areas. The Guard has a reputation of coming up to speed real quick, but not before losing a lot of troops--disproportionately to regular and reserve troops--while engaging in a learning curve. Such was the case in Korea and Vietnam... and quite possibly in Iraq and Afghanistan. None-the-less, the Guard is supposed to be guarding our home front and responding to disasters, violence or threats on our own soil, not overseas unless there is no other choice. We really need to look at the way we deploy our troops and the manner in which we maintain troop levels for active duty and reserves.

Congressional investigators have found that the Defense Department does not adequately track National Guard equipment needs for domestic missions, raising questions about whether the state-run units have adequate supplies to respond to disasters and emergencies on U.S. soil.

In an unreleased reported dated Jan. 26, the Government Accountability Office concluded that defense officials have recognized the need to track the National Guard's stateside stocks of vehicles and other gear available to respond to domestic disasters, but those efforts have not yet yielded reliable information on the equipment units have at their disposal.

"Until DOD reaches agreement on a specific approach for measuring readiness for domestic missions and requirements are defined, it will remain unclear whether the Guard is equipped to respond effectively to the consequences of a large-scale terrorist attack or natural disaster," according to the report.

Over the last several months, many state Guard leaders have complained that their units took their best equipment with them when they deployed to Iraq, leaving the personnel at home short of trucks, radios and other equipment needed for domestic missions.

Former US Contractor Sentenced To 9 Years For Iraq Reconstruction Bribe Scheme

The fact that we have let so much fraud, waste, over-spending, bribery, profiteering, and other criminal activities, including outright theft and embezzlement, to occur on such a grand scale, is the bad news. Convicting the person responsible for the crimes in this case is good news.

A former US contractor working for the US Department of Defense in Iraq received a nine-year prison sentence Monday and was told he must forfeit the $3.6 million he received for awarding contracts to construction companies owned by an American businessman and through money laundering. Robert Stein, Jr., who worked as the comptroller and funding officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority during 2003 and 2004, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy, money laundering and bribery last year. He admitted to conspiring with US Army officers to steal over $2 million in rebuilding funds and awarding contracts to construction companies owned by Philip Bloom in exchange for more than $1 million in cash and goods.

Stein will also serve three years of probation after his prison sentence ends. Officials from the US Department of Justice said Stein cooperated with the government's investigation, partially mitigating his sentence, which could have reached up to 30 years.

Missteps by Iraqi Forces in Battle Raise Questions
If we truly believe President Bush and company, this news is bad for homeland security... But I add it just to demonstrate that the Bush gang is out of touch with what is an ongoing issue of competence in Iraq and the White House. While we can shake our heads about the incompetence over in Iraq, we really need to worry about the incompetence in the Oval Office (and throughout the administration) because they are the ones that are supposed to be preparing us for homeland security matters and events... Remember, Katrina issues are still plaguing the Gulf Coast.

Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.

They said American ground troops — and not just air support as reported Sunday — were mobilized to help the Iraqi soldiers, who appeared to have dangerously underestimated the strength of the militia, which calls itself the Soldiers of Heaven and had amassed hundreds of heavily armed fighters.

Iraqi government officials said the group apparently was preparing to storm Najaf, a holy city dear to Shiite Islam, occupy the sacred Imam Ali mosque and assassinate the religious hierarchy there, including the revered leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, during a Shiite holiday when many pilgrims visit.

“This group had more capabilities than the government,” said Abdul Hussein Abtan, the deputy governor of Najaf Province, at a news conference.

Only a month ago, in an elaborate handover ceremony, the American command transferred security authority over Najaf to the Iraqis. The Americans said at the time that they would remain available to assist the Iraqis in the event of a crisis.

The Iraqis and Americans eventually prevailed in the battle. But the Iraqi security forces’ miscalculations about the group’s strength and intentions raised troubling questions about their ability to recognize and deal with a threat.

Rude Comments Not Appreciated... Lack Of Conscientious Thought Appreciated Even Less

A person who identified himself as "Russ" left a comment about one of my posts from April 2006. While I appreciate the fact that he took the time to go all the way back to April, 10 months back, to read my posts, I have to question the legitimacy of his comment. I question the legitimacy of his comment because of the manner in which he expressed himself, and the loose association he seemed to attach his comments to the original post.

The original post to which "Russ" commented was entitled "Censure Seems Inappropriate", and never mentions John Kerry at all. Yet, the very first part of Russ's comment attacks John Kerry:

"Bla Bla Bla... Kerry is an as***le too."

Russ's use of overt profanity is uncivil and inappropriate. He is apparently expressing anger, but the anger is not directed to anything I stated in my post. My opening statements in my original post addresses hearings in Congress regarding the conduct of President Bush and a proposal by Senator Russ Feingold to censure the president on the basis of this conduct. Apparently, Russ is a bit out of touch with the reality of my post.

Russ goes on to say:

"Where do you think we would be today if Kerry was in charge? The reality of it is, we would be in the same boat. Do you think the Muslim world would be our friends? Look around, do you think "Death to America" painted on signs are for the Bush administration only?"

My post never mentions Muslims at all. It never mentions Kerry. My post criticized the actions of President Bush and his warrantless spying, disregard for our civil liberties, his conduct of combat over seas, and his disregard for his oath of office in favor of his allegiances to an entrenched ideology, big business and the Christian Right.

"Please pull your head out of your ass before its too late. Thanks."

Since Russ failed to focus on anything I said, and his anger lacks specific focus, I must assume that he really has no grasp of the parameters of the issues I addressed. So I have to ask what it is that he is angry about? What is the basis of his angry and inappropriate commentary? Why is he attacking my character rather than my words and my position on the issues?

I can only assume that Russ is entrenched in some ultra-conservative ideology that does not care to be confused by the facts, rational thought or the forensics of the debate. He apparently only cares to engage in character assassination and casting aspersions rather than dealing with the issues legitimately raised by the events covered in my original post.

"Be a man, post this for all to read. (Or are you afraid it all too true? I am.)"

It seems, even though Russ and I have never met, that he feels I am some sort of ill-equipped person that would feel threatened by such commentary. I do not understand such an attack on the integrity of my standing as a man, or my integrity as a person. But, psychologically speaking, it appears that the inadequacy is not mine to own.

Once again, I implore my readers to read my words. If you want to respond--positively or negatively--do so with an appropriate focus on the issues I raise rather than merely employing an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks only reveal a certain ignorance and a lack of integrity and a lack of intellectual prowess on the part of those that employ such tactics.

I would prefer to genuinely engage people on the basis of our views and the facts that support or detract from those views. I have never backed away from genuinely listening to intellectually sound debate. In fact, as anyone who has engaged me in such debate will attest, I relish such engagements with an intellectual curiosity and an appreciation of the integrity of the other person.

In any event, I really appreciate the fact that anyone reads my posts. I know that we all have a lot on our plate and taking the time to read my blog is taking time away from other things. I know how much time it takes to remain informed enough to formulate opinions on the matters that confront us with ethical and intellectual integrity.

So, while I did not appreciate the vulgarity of Russ's comments, nor his apparent lack of specificity in regard to my comments, I felt the need to respond to his effort to read my posts. Thank you, Russ, and everyone else, for reading my blog.

Capital Versus Capitol

Someone has anonymously brought my attention to my use of the term "Capital Hill" instead of the correct term, "Capitol Hill" when I describe events in congress.

While I appreciate the attention to detail that this anonymous reader paid to my posts, I must point out that my use of the term, "capital," is a deliberate slap in the face of those congress critters that seem to think of their election to office as a means by which they seek to line their pockets with new found "capital" and line themselves up for high-paying jobs if they leave office. The revolving door that is open to representatives and senators in the field of lobbying borders on the ridiculous and exceeds the borders of ethics. While the new ethics rules being considered and passed in congress may address some of these issues, more needs to be done in this regard.

So, I contend that my use of the term, "capital," is an appropriate way to bring these issues to our attention.

Something Of Interest In Matters Of Justice

The True State of C.S.I. Justice

My position on the death penalty is clear: Our approach is inherently flawed and unjust. Our approach to evidence is also inherently flawed and subject to human error, including the predisposition to target certain suspects before conclusive evidence is present.

We are led to believe, by the ubiquitous number of television shows and documentaries, that our criminal investigative sciences are entirely reliable. But there is strong evidence, in the form of improperly convicted persons, that our science is significantly flawed enough to have supported these erroneous convictions.

We need to establish the commissions that certain states have already employed in every state and at the federal level. In addition, we need to change the rules in our courts so that there is always a way for a convicted person to present new evidence that could prove, or at least provide reasonable doubt, innocence.

Modern DNA testing is steadily uncovering a dark history of justice denied. More than 190 DNA exonerations in 18 years show ever more alarming patterns of citizens, wrongly convicted, suffering in prison. Consider the eight felons finally exonerated through DNA challenges in New York State in just the last 13 months. Or the 12 people who had to fight long and hard to prove their innocence in Dallas County, Tex., alone in the past five years. New York and Texas are, in fact, the leading states in yielding these hard-fought exonerations. This is hardly a credit to their justice systems since the victories are won by dedicated pro bono lawyers, not by state monitors charged with finding injustice.

It’s clearly time for these grim showcase states to join the half-dozen pioneering states that have created what are termed innocence commissions. These are independent investigative bodies of judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, police officers and forensic scientists who re-examine case facts after prisoners are exonerated using DNA evidence.

These respected authorities try to identify the causes of the wrongful convictions and propose changes to improve the state of justice. Calls to create commissions in New York and Texas are bogged down in statehouse politics, even as a half-dozen other states are poised to create their own monitors.

The most recent exonerations show how much such commissions are needed. In Dallas, a prisoner was finally proved innocent after laboring for 18 years to win the right to DNA testing and disprove a rape conviction based solely on faulty testimony of a witness. (North Carolina’s innocence commission, led by the state’s chief justice, has already called for police investigators to vet witnesses more carefully.) In New York, a man who spent 15 years in prison on a murder conviction not only proved his innocence, but also tracked the actual murderer through DNA with the help of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law.

The Smell Of Money Brings Increased Interest In Energy Technology

Tech Barons Take on New Project: Energy Policy

Like sharks chasing the scent of blood in the water, high technology investors are looking at the new climate of support for alternative energy technologies with a certain amount of drool and hunger. Where were these investors over the past 33 years? Our nation has been under stress and duress because of our dependence upon fossil fuels and the political/economic pressures put upon us by OPEC, and by Saudi Arabia in particular. So where were these high-tech solutions? Why haven't our political leaders sought to create an environment that would support creating high-tech solutions and investment?

The answers to these questions are not that difficult to discern. All we have to do is look at our own history with a fine-toothed comb and realize that we have been manipulated into our current predicament by willing conspirators comprised of our own political, corporate and wealthy investors. We really do need to change our behaviors, not only to a more "green" regard for our world, but also for a more ethical regard for the way we do our politics and business.

President Bush set broad goals last week for the adoption of alternative energy. Hoping to take on the role of filling in the details is an unlikely group: Silicon Valley’s technology investors.

These venture capitalists, backers of giants like Google and Genentech, have traditionally been free-market advocates, favoring ideas and innovation over government intervention. Now they are heading to Washington on a crusade to influence energy policy because they have a big stake in the outcome.

The investors in recent years have poured billions of dollars into alternative energy start-ups in areas like solar and wind power or the production of fuel for cars from feedstock and crop waste. Many of these projects, they say, could stall without subsidies or government mandates for greater energy efficiency.

These barons of the new economy are not new to politics, though their interest in energy places them in a powerful spotlight. And it puts them in conflict with the oil and gas industries, which are more politically potent and have far deeper pockets.

“It’s very different from the business world, where you come in with a good idea and leave with a deal,” said Mark Baldassare, research director for the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan research group. The question, he said, is whether venture capitalists “have the patience to be part of the political process.”

The venture capitalists say they have earned political credibility through their track record of creating jobs and technological change. However, if they are to translate their formula for innovation successfully to the world of energy, they say, they need the government to be, in effect, an investment partner.

The message to politicians is that “you have to create a playing field to make it possible for us to back these companies,” said Nicholas Parker, chairman of the Cleantech Group, a research and trade organization representing venture investors in alternative energy.

In recent months, venture capitalists have met with most of the ostensible 2008 presidential candidates, members of Congress, and officials in the Bush administration and the Energy Department, pushing their ideas for things like tax subsidies and efficiency requirements.

With President Bush’s State of the Union address emphasizing alternative energy, and with the ascension of Democrats, who are less aligned with oil interests than the Republicans, the time might seem right for Silicon Valley to speak up.

Apparently, We Cannot Trust Israel

Israeli Use Of US-Made Cluster Bombs May Have Violated Arms Export Laws: White House

The problem with trading in weapons, especially high-tech weapons like those that we have shared with the Saudis, the Israelis, as well as Saddam Hussein back in the day, the Shah of Iran before the Ayatollahs took over, General Noriega during his dictatorship over Panama, General Pinochet during his overthrow of the elected Chilean government and other places where we have used arms as an incentive to be "friends" with the United States, is that our "friends" all seem to turn out to be fascists with tastes for fascism, secret police forces known for murder (or abductions, torture, drug trafficking, or other crimes), heinous crimes against their own people and a poor record of adhering to the rules we set forth when we made the sale of weapons to these despotic regimes.

We have a poor record on these sorts of deals. In the Philippines, under the Marcos regime, a supposed democracy was run like a fascist dictatorship, which we supported because of our "need" to maintain military bases in the Far East. In South Korea there have been a number of regimes, most of the time elected to office, that have engaged not only in scandals, but also major violations of human rights... mostly against Korean students protesting the abuses of the government and the affiliation with the US gone wrong.

Once again Israel has proven itself to be fascist and an untrustworthy "friend," perhaps even a friend unworthy of our support and allegiance. By violating the conditions under which we sold them arms, by employing tactics that are essentially disproportionate and "overkill," and by justifying any and all means of attacking those that seek to do Israel harm, Israel becomes a despotic regime without a moral leg to stand upon in the face of the evils lined up against them.

I support Israel's right to exist. I support Israel's right to defend itself, including some preemptive strikes given the number of forces mounted against them and the history of dirty deeds used in the past. But I cannot support Israel's disregard for humanity, war crimes, invasions of sovereign nations, embargo and blockade tactics that harm innocent civilians as well as targeted combatants, or the use of indefinite incarceration and torture to arrive at their desired outcomes.

But Israel is not the only nation in the Middle East to disregard the conditions under which we have engaged in arms trading. Saudi Arabia has a consistent and persistent pattern of accepting our weapons under certain conditions, and then either ignoring those conditions or using political and economic pressure to get us to modify those conditions. At various times over the last 40 years we have traded arms with Egypt only to have those conditions ignored as well.

We need a distinctive and immediate change in regard to our foreign policy. We need to cut off all arms and military supply deals with any nation that does not comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We need to comply with that Universal Declaration ourselves. We need to export food, health care, education, technical support for water supply and sanitation, technical support for civil engineering, technical support for agriculture, and other forms of aid that will improve the conditions and standard of living in those nations that we embrace as "friends." We need to export compassion and principles that embrace humanity, rather than weapons and an entrenched ideology based on war and conflict.

In the meantime, we need to cut off Israel for a couple of months, or until we get a genuine commitment to the democratic ideals and principles under which we originally agreed to support the right of an Israeli state to exist. If Israel is unwilling to live by those principles, then perhaps we need to withdraw our support entirely. The same goes for the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Saudis and everyone else that we deal with... and we need to change ourselves. We need to heed the words of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Truman and Eisenhower, all of whom warned us about the manner in which we should deal with other nations.

The problem here gets ridiculous, though. The US State Department has launched an investigation based on the reports by Human Rights Watch, a reputable NGO that monitors human rights violations. However, even if the allegations against Israel prove to be true, the Bush administration will probably not impose any sanctions against Israel, even though our law provides for such sanctions, the breach of not only our law but international law screams for such sanctions, and human decency mandates some sort of action. So we must ask ourselves if we ever plan to stand on our principles and do the right thing?

The White House plans to tell Congress on Monday that Israel's use of US-made cluster munitions in southern Lebanon last year may have violated several decades-old agreements requiring that the weapons only be used against clearly defined military targets or the Arms Export Control Act, which authorizes use of the weapons only for self-defense, the New York Times reported Sunday. The US State Department opened an investigation into Israel's use of the weapons in August. US officials, however, say it is unlikely that US President George W. Bush will impose sanctions on Israel for such a violation. The State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls began investigating Israel's use of cluster bombs in Southern Lebanon in August 2006.

In July 2006, Human Rights Watch accused Israel of using cluster grenades in an attack on a Hezbollah village in south Lebanon, allegations which Israeli officials have denied. Cluster munitions are considered by many to be inaccurate weapons designed to spread damage indiscriminately and could therefore be considered illegal [backgrounder] under multiple provisions of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (1977).

More Fraud Being Investigated "Over There"

US Army Probing Multiple Contract Frauds In Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait Operations

On top of all the controversy about being in Iraq, and on top of all the fraud that has already been uncovered, comes new reports of fraud that involves not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Kuwait, which is a base of operations for logistics and personnel. I am willing to bet that if we dig deeper we will find even more fraud involving operations out of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, where we have troops and naval vessels stationed in support of our Middle East operations.

The real problem is that it is us taxpayers that are footing the bill for all this fraud and waste, and our own government has hogtied us from recovering it or prosecuting those that are committing the fraud.

The US Army confirmed Saturday to AP that it has up to 50 criminal investigations underway into alleged frauds involving private contractors running operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. The Pentagon currently outsources many military tasks from laundry to weapons system repair work, but the military's inability to monitor most contractors has cost the US government millions of dollars. One case involves an Army chief warrant officer who allegedly took a $50,000 bribe to steer a contract for paper products and plastic flatware to a Kuwaiti company.

In August 2006, a US federal judge set aside a $10 million verdict against private military contractor Custer Battles, ruling that the former Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq could not be considered a US government entity. Custer Battles was sued for defrauding the US government under the False Claims Act and a federal jury found the company guilty of 37 fraudulent acts against the CPA, including establishing shell companies, forging invoices, inflating charges, and stealing equipment in an attempt to loot millions of dollars. Earlier this month, Senate Democrats unveiled legislation that would make it easier to prosecute war profiteers.

Government Screw-Ups Given Immunity Because The Attorney General Says So

Supreme Court Upholds Legal Immunity For Federal Employees

This is a case where a federal employee acted outside of his assigned duties to make comments about the performance of an employee of a federal contractor and actively advocated for the dismissal of that contractor's employee. If this was an ordinary civil matter, there are numerous precedents for supporting the initial suit that sought redress and punitive measures against the person advocating for the dismissal of a vendor's employee. But our laws and precedents allow our government, and employees acting in good faith with their office and assigned duties a great deal of sovereign immunity. However, the Supreme Court had set forth a precedent not too long ago, under the Rhenquist Court, that indicated that federal, state, county and municipal employees (and in some cases the agencies for which they worked) could be sued for negligence and deliberate acts that fell outside of their expertise, duties and/or authority of office.

This case upholds the notion of a certain amount of immunity, but then undermines the previous precedent and the notion that negligence can be proven. While I agree with the overall outcome of this case because I do not think the original plaintiff had a genuine case, I think SCOTUS has dealt a silent but deadly brain fart in the overall decision. The basis of that brain fart is detailed in the part of the decision that allows the US Attorney General to certify that the employee accused of wrongdoing was doing their job when the incident in question occurred.

The Attorney General does not have to provide evidence that the employee was in fact in compliance and accordance with the job description, or was within their authority, or was in keeping with established rules of conduct, regulations or past precedents of performance. All the Attorney General has to do is issue a letter or memo that states that the employee accused of wrongdoing was within the scope of their duties and conditions of employment for the federal government. This standard essentially grants the Attorney General the power of granting not only immunity, but also a de facto pardon. It places all employees of government in the position of being immune from being held accountable for negligence, exceeding the bounds of authority, or committing an intentional tort by putting the federal government--which has even greater immunity under the principle of sovereign immunity--as long as they are buddies, cronies or at least friendly with the powers-that-be... or at least the current Attorney General.

This undermines the First Amendment right to seek redress of grievances and tilts the scales overwhelmingly in favor of the government, no matter what action(s) is taken, and no matter how wrongful or unjust that action(s) might be.

Even the dissenting opinions in this case did not address the First Amendment issues or the just cause of the plaintiff in such cases.

The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to federal employees' immunity from on-the-job lawsuits.

In a 7-2 decision last week, the high court ruled that the government can insert itself as the defendant in lawsuits against federal workers who claim innocence, even if the alleged act was not part of the accused employee's job description.

"It would make scant sense to read the [law] as leaving an employee charged with an intentional tort to fend for himself when he denies wrongdoing," Justice Ruth Ginsburg said in the majority opinion for Osborn v. Haley. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

In the case, government contractor Pat Osborn sued a Forest Service employee for allegedly convincing her employer, the Land Between the Lakes Association Inc., to fire her. Osborn claimed the employee, Barry Haley, did this after she confronted him for not hiring her for an open contracting officer position with the Forest Service.

A federal court in Kentucky, where the case originated, found that if Haley did get Osborn fired, that act was not in his job description, making him responsible for his own defense. The government appealed and won in the 6th District Court of Appeals, which covers Kentucky and several other states. The Supreme Court decision affirmed the appeals court's ruling.

Under the 1988 Westfall Act, federal employees are immune from lawsuits as long as the Attorney General certifies that they were doing their job when the incident in question occurred. The government can then substitute itself as the defendant.

Now the court has affirmed that the Attorney General can certify an act as job-related simply by denying that the incident ever occurred. The justices also affirmed that in such circumstances the cases should be heard in federal court, rather than at the state level. The government's involvement requires federal jurisdiction.

Justice Stephen Breyer sided with Ginsburg's opinion because of issues such as federal jurisdiction, but he disagreed that an innocence claim should be grounds for immunity.

"Consider, for example, an aggravated sexual assault...on Coney Island where the government employee, say a Yellowstone Park forest ranger, if present on Coney Island must have been there on a frolic of his own," Breyer said.

Scalia's dissenting opinion focused on the court's jurisdiction in this case, not on the ability of the government to step in on behalf of its employees.

Government Screw-Ups Given Immunity Because The Attorney General Says So

Supreme Court Upholds Legal Immunity For Federal Employees

This is a case where a federal employee acted outside of his assigned duties to make comments about the performance of an employee of a federal contractor and actively advocated for the dismissal of that contractor's employee. If this was an ordinary civil matter, there are numerous precedents for supporting the initial suit that sought redress and punitive measures against the person advocating for the dismissal of a vendor's employee. But our laws and precedents allow our government, and employees acting in good faith with their office and assigned duties a great deal of sovereign immunity. However, the Supreme Court had set forth a precedent not too long ago, under the Rhenquist Court, that indicated that federal, state, county and municipal employees (and in some cases the agencies for which they worked) could be sued for negligence and deliberate acts that fell outside of their expertise, duties and/or authority of office.

This case upholds the notion of a certain amount of immunity, but then undermines the previous precedent and the notion that negligence can be proven. While I agree with the overall outcome of this case because I do not think the original plaintiff had a genuine case, I think SCOTUS has dealt a silent but deadly brain fart in the overall decision. The basis of that brain fart is detailed in the part of the decision that allows the US Attorney General to certify that the employee accused of wrongdoing was doing their job when the incident in question occurred.

The Attorney General does not have to provide evidence that the employee was in fact in compliance and accordance with the job description, or was within their authority, or was in keeping with established rules of conduct, regulations or past precedents of performance. All the Attorney General has to do is issue a letter or memo that states that the employee accused of wrongdoing was within the scope of their duties and conditions of employment for the federal government. This standard essentially grants the Attorney General the power of granting not only immunity, but also a de facto pardon. It places all employees of government in the position of being immune from being held accountable for negligence, exceeding the bounds of authority, or committing an intentional tort by putting the federal government--which has even greater immunity under the principle of sovereign immunity--as long as they are buddies, cronies or at least friendly with the powers-that-be... or at least the current Attorney General.

This undermines the First Amendment right to seek redress of grievances and tilts the scales overwhelmingly in favor of the government, no matter what action(s) is taken, and no matter how wrongful or unjust that action(s) might be.

Even the dissenting opinions in this case did not address the First Amendment issues or the just cause of the plaintiff in such cases.

The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to federal employees' immunity from on-the-job lawsuits.

In a 7-2 decision last week, the high court ruled that the government can insert itself as the defendant in lawsuits against federal workers who claim innocence, even if the alleged act was not part of the accused employee's job description.

"It would make scant sense to read the [law] as leaving an employee charged with an intentional tort to fend for himself when he denies wrongdoing," Justice Ruth Ginsburg said in the majority opinion for Osborn v. Haley. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

In the case, government contractor Pat Osborn sued a Forest Service employee for allegedly convincing her employer, the Land Between the Lakes Association Inc., to fire her. Osborn claimed the employee, Barry Haley, did this after she confronted him for not hiring her for an open contracting officer position with the Forest Service.

A federal court in Kentucky, where the case originated, found that if Haley did get Osborn fired, that act was not in his job description, making him responsible for his own defense. The government appealed and won in the 6th District Court of Appeals, which covers Kentucky and several other states. The Supreme Court decision affirmed the appeals court's ruling.

Under the 1988 Westfall Act, federal employees are immune from lawsuits as long as the Attorney General certifies that they were doing their job when the incident in question occurred. The government can then substitute itself as the defendant.

Now the court has affirmed that the Attorney General can certify an act as job-related simply by denying that the incident ever occurred. The justices also affirmed that in such circumstances the cases should be heard in federal court, rather than at the state level. The government's involvement requires federal jurisdiction.

Justice Stephen Breyer sided with Ginsburg's opinion because of issues such as federal jurisdiction, but he disagreed that an innocence claim should be grounds for immunity.

"Consider, for example, an aggravated sexual assault...on Coney Island where the government employee, say a Yellowstone Park forest ranger, if present on Coney Island must have been there on a frolic of his own," Breyer said.

Scalia's dissenting opinion focused on the court's jurisdiction in this case, not on the ability of the government to step in on behalf of its employees.

Another Bush In The Making? The Ultra-Conservative Christian Right Candidate For 2008

Huckabee Announces Presidential Bid: Former Arkansas Governor Courts Conservative Republicans

Transcript of Mike Huckabee's Interview On Meet The Press With Tim Russert

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, has thrown his hat in the ring for the presidential race in 2008. Huckabee's performance as Arkansas's chief executive lacked a lot of credibility. While Huckabee pointed to a lot of "successes" during his administration, he failed to acknowledge that Arkansas has not met many of the basic needs for many of its residents. He also failed to acknowledge that racism is alive and well in that state, even to the degree that some people are discriminated against in terms of hiring, education and coping with extreme poverty conditions (as compared with other US states)

MR. RUSSERT: You were governor of Arkansas for 10 years plus. The Cato Institute, conservative think tank... analyzed your performance, and this is what they said:

“Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, Republican, final term grade: F. Mike Huckabee ... receives an F for his current term and a D for his entire tenure. The main reason for the drop was his insistence on raising taxes at almost every turn throughout his final term.” And The Club for Growth, another conservative think tank, wrote this: “About Gov. Huckabee, the Club for Growth ... is adamant. ... They say he raised taxes five times—a gas tax increase in 1999, the cigarette tax hike, tax increases in 2004, a tax on beer and a tax on nursing homes.” That’s a tough record to sell to a Republican audience in primary states.

Given that Huckabee also served as Lt. Governor for Arkansas as well, his track record doesn't lend itself to allowing much confidence in his abilities and performance. Add to that the fact that he is also an ultra-conservative Baptist opposed to pro-choice rights (even though God provides choice as a condition for all Christians, Jews and Muslims); is opposed not only to same sex marriage, but also equal civil and workplace rights for homosexuals on religious grounds; and supports President Bush's plan for expanding troop numbers in Iraq. His support for escalating our troop numbers in Iraq is unwavering:

MR. RUSSERT: If you were in the Senate or the House, would you vote to oppose the president sending more troops to Iraq?

GOV. HUCKABEE: I think that’s a dangerous position to take, to oppose a sitting commander in chief while we’ve got people being shot at on the ground. I think it’s one thing to have a debate and a discussion about this strategy, but to openly oppose, in essence, the strategy, I think that can be a very risky thing for our troops.

In a contrast to Bush, Huckabee does have some moderate views regarding poverty, the environment and the rights of immigrants (legal and illegal). Huckabee also plays to the spiritual nature of all Americans, but remains committed to a political ideology that is grounded in seeing all of America express Christian values.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee yesterday announced plans to form a presidential exploratory committee, hoping to carve out a conservative niche in an increasingly crowded field of Republican candidates.

Indeed, Huckabee is playing to the ultra-conservative Christian Right that was his operational base in Arkansas and is hoping to catch the same wave that pushed Bush, his father and Ronald Reagan into high office.

The onetime Southern Baptist minister....

Judging from his interview with Tim Russert on Meet The Press, his anointing as a Baptist minister has not worn off. Now anyone that has had any exposure to the Baptist denominations knows that there are Baptists and then there are BAPTISTS. Huckabee falls into the latter category and, despite his genteel manner and ability to spin his commitment to faith as a natural part of who he is and a particular trait of all Americans, he is committed to bringing America back to Christ.

MR. RUSSERT: I was reading a lot about you, an ordained Baptist minister.... I want to ask you a couple things that you said earlier in your political career. “Huckabee ... explained why he left pastoring for politics. ‘I didn’t get into politics because I thought government had a better answer. I got into politics because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.’” And then this: “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.” Would you, as president, consider America a Christian nation and try to lead it as—into a situation as being a more Christian nation?

GOV. HUCKABEE: I think it’s dangerous to say that we are a nation that ought to be pushed into a Christian faith by its leaders. However, I make no apology for my faith. My faith explains me. It means that I believe that we’re all frail, it means that we’re all fragile, that all of us have faults, none of us are perfect, that all of us need redemption. We are a nation of faith. It doesn’t necessarily have to be mine. But we are a nation that believes that faith is an important part of describing who we are, and our generosity, and our sense of optimism and hope. That does describe me.

Despite the spin and the reframing of his words in accordance with what is politically expedient, Huckabee is intent upon making America over in the image of the ultra-conservative Christian Right.

MR. RUSSERT: But when you say “take this nation back for Christ,” what does that say to Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists? What...

GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, I think I—I’d probably phrase it a little differently today. But I don’t want to make people think that I’m going to replace the Capitol dome with a steeple or change the legislative sessions for prayer meetings. What it does mean is that people of faith do need to exercise their sense of responsibility toward education, toward health, toward the environment. All of those issues, for me, are driven by my sense that this is a wonderful world that God’s made, we’re responsible for taking care of it. We’re responsible for being responsible managers and stewards of it. I think that’s what faith ought to do in our lives if we’re in public service.

While I support Huckabee's right to worship as he chooses, and his right to run for political office, I cannot see anyone in their right mind supporting yet another Christian Right candidate for president. We have seen this entrenchment in the Reagan-Bush administrations, as well as in the current Bush administration. Being a nation of faith does not require all of us to believe as Huckabee--or as the Christian Right--believes. Our political views, while certainly a product of our religious and philosophical views, need not be determined for us. Our fundamental freedom is defined by our right to determine not only our own form of government, but also in protecting the right of each person to act in accordance with their own values and conscience, regardless of religious affiliation. The compulsion that the Christian Right has for forcing their views and religious doctrine down our collective throats is reason enough not to vote for such a candidate as Mr. Huckabee.

Huckabee enters the race as a long shot, boasting little national name recognition and up against such high-profile and well-funded Republican candidates as Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. But, like Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), Huckabee is trusting that the GOP's traditional base is not content with the current leaders in the race and that there might be room for a staunch conservative who is antiabortion and opposed to same-sex marriage.

Huckabee, 51, said yesterday that he supports President Bush's position on the Iraq war, and he discussed his record in Arkansas, which was not always predictable. He was an advocate for providing state services for illegal immigrants, opened up insurance benefits for 70,000 children from low-income homes and was criticized by fiscal conservatives for raising taxes several times.

He also publicly supported creationism, a philosophy advocated by fervent Christians, arguing that students should be exposed to the study of the doctrine as well as evolution.

His positions on these issues betray his words of accommodation to those of us that believe differently than he does as false and opportunistic... the words and tactics of a seasoned politician who lacks the insight to see that he is in denial about his own convictions, entrenchment and ability to represent all of America in good conscience and under the conditions set forth by the Constitution.

We do not need another committed Christian in the White House. What we need is a principled person willing to fulfill the oath of office and the duties of the President in full accord with the Constitution, regardless of his/her religious affiliation, faith or doctrinal beliefs.

Mike Huckabee is not that person. Neither is Mitt Romney for similar reasons. John McCain fails the test because of his lack of consistency and commitment to the Constitution. So far, the field of candidates for President in 2008 is a weak showing on both sides of the political spectrum.

Protests Against The Invasion & Occupation Of Iraq Are Heating Up

More Americans are beginning to hit the streets, as well as sponsoring web sites and lobbying efforts, in protest against our continued involvement in Iraq. There are several veterans' groups that are specifically against our continued presence and activity in Iraq, as well as veterans' groups from past eras and wars speaking out against US escalation in Iraq. Despite the serious consequences, several soldiers have chosen to stand up against being deployed--in many cases redeployed--in Iraq. We are seeing billboards that merely state: Out Of Iraq Now.

Even Gold Star Mothers are getting involved in the opposition to our Iraq involvement. Many retired generals and field rank officers (O-4 to O-6) have spoken out against the lack of effective strategy and planning in Iraq. These officers--many with impeccable credentials and records of heroic service--are still opposed to the plans for Iraq despite the "new plan" announced by President Bush about a week before the State of the Union Address. There is a oral history project involving interviews with troops that have returned from combat areas that oppose what is going on over there for logical and ethical reasons (c.f. Ground Truth: The Human Cost Of The War)

Despite the heating up of these protests, much like what we witnessed toward the end of the Vietnam Era, President Bush refuses to see the wisdom of the American people.

Thousands Gather to Protest Iraq War Policy in Washington

A raucous and colorful multitude of protesters, led by some of the aging activists of the past, staged a series of rallies and a march on the Capitol yesterday to demand that the United States end its war in Iraq.

Under a blue sky with a pale midday moon, tens of thousands of people angry about the war and other policies of the Bush administration danced, sang, shouted and chanted their opposition.

They came from across the country and across the activist spectrum, with a wide array of grievances. Many seemed to be under 30, but there were others who said they had been at the famed war protests of the 1960s and '70s.

They came to Washington at what they said was a moment of opportunity to push the new Congress to take action against the war, even as the Bush administration is accelerating plans to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. This week, the Senate will begin debating a resolution of disapproval of the president's Iraq policy, setting up a dramatic confrontation with the White House.

Some protesters plan to stay and lobby their representatives in Congress. Other antiwar activists intend to barnstorm states this week urging senators to oppose the troop escalation.

Protesters Say No To War In Iraq (Portsmouth, New Hampshire)

The two men stood only inches apart in Portsmouth's Market Square, their voices raised in political disagreement and their faces locked in scowls. All around them, anti-war protesters waved signs and shouted slogans amid the honks of support from passing cars.

This was as contentious and chaotic as it got Saturday, where more than 50 protesters and a handful of people with differing views gathered for a peace vigil.

The vigil and another one that was taking place in Exeter, both between 1 and 2 p.m., were designed to mirror the peace march going on at the same time in Washington, D.C.

Protesters stood in the cold waving signs which read "New Hampshire says no to war" and "Peace now!"

Former Democratic state senator Burt Cohen spoke, drawing cheers from most of the crowd. Cohen urged the crowd to "keep the pressure on" to end the war in Iraq.

"I'm old enough to remember Vietnam. The protests started out small, but they got bigger and bigger and eventually helped bring about the end of the Vietnam War," Cohen said. "I see that happening again."

Army Denies Students Appeal Of Iraq Deployment

The U.S. Army has turned down an Eastern Illinois University student's appeal of orders that would send him to Iraq. Edward Sleezer says his son -- 22-year-old Drew Sleezer -- received the news by letter on Friday. Drew Sleezer is from the Chicago suburb of Darien. He's a sophomore at Eastern Illinois after serving with the Army in Afghanistan in 2004 and 2005.

Army enlistment includes a commitment of up to eight years, so Sleezer still has several years to go. He (Sleezer) was told last fall that he would be called up again as part of President Bush's plan to add troops in Iraq. Sleezer has said he would file a second appeal if his first was denied.

Army Vet Ann Wright Running "Field Operations for Peace, Not War"

Ann Wright spent 26 years in the U.S. Army and Army Reserves. She was a diplomat in the State Department for 15 years before resigning in March 2003, protesting the then-impending invasion of Iraq.

Retired Generals Against Iraq War

Retired generals are speaking out against this war and the civilian leadership that thought it up and messed it up. Retired, yes. But all senior generals are (or at least consider themselves) members of a rather exclusive club, and when they speak out, it's not impossible that they express the opinions of their active peers.

The list is impressive. In a New York Times op-ed column, retired Major Gen. Paul Eaton, who helped revive the Iraqi army, described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically" and called for his resignation. Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and now a Yale professor, said in a speech covered by the Providence Journal that America's invasion of Iraq might be the worst strategic mistake in American history.

Even With The Recent Increases Offered By The Dems, The Minimum Wage Excludes The Most Needy

Migrant Farm Workers in Ohio Threaten to Sue For Higher Minimum Wage

The minimum wage is an important issue for me. I know a lot of people that are among the working poor. These people often fill some of the toughest jobs and work under the most exploitive conditions. Seldom are they offered any flexibility in their schedule and even more seldom are they offered benefits. Many are poorly educated--or at least under-educated--and work in hotels, restaurants, repetitive manufacturing or processing jobs, or in our agricultural fields.

Restaurant workers, parking attendants, hotel workers and others that depend upon tips are subject to a reduced minimum wage in all but seven states. This is nothing less than a subsidization of restaurant owners, hotel operators, parking garage owners (who charge outrageous hourly prices in the big cities) and an outrageous injustice to some of our neediest workers and their families. Migrant field workers and seasonal agricultural workers are also treated differently under these regulations and standard by reducing the wages required by significant amounts. Additionally, US territories and protectorates are treated differently under the minimum wage regulations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, even under the proposed changes in 2006 and 2007.

Like our immigration laws, the minimum wage laws and standards are unfair and are used to institutionalize some degree of prejudice. Indeed, many workers in hotels, restaurants, farms and agricultural businesses are migrants, under-educated,or immigrants. Many of the workers in the US Marianna Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico and other US territories or protectorates work in the textile, fishing (cannery) or other manufacturing endeavors in what amounts to almost sweat shop conditions. Since work is hard to find for many within these populations (for a myriad of reasons including place of origin), there are not many options for these workers. In effect, we use our minimum wage laws to keep people poor, discriminate on the basis of place of origin, and to deny those in the lower socio-economic strata health care and/or a decent standard of living. It is odd that the jobs these folks take are often some of the hardest, or longest hours, among all the jobs we have to offer.

Then, of course, the minimum wage we have to offer has not kept pace with inflation. Accordingly, the minimum wage in 1960 bought a whole lot more than the minimum wage of 2006, or even the proposed minimum wage increases for 2009.

So when I read this article about Latino migrant workers threatening to file suit in order to reverse some of these unjust exemptions that only serve to discriminate, subsidize certain industries (many, like the restaurant industry, do not need the subsidies because their businesses are very lucrative and profitable), and to keep a certain segment of the population below a living wage. While this article addresses the minimum wage laws in Ohio, the same issues and dynamics exist with the federal statutes and regulations.

It is high time that we begin to think in terms of a "living wage" and a "just wage" rather than a "minimum wage." For those people among the ultra-conservative Religious Right (especially the Christian Right) and the GOP that argue for people to "bootstrap" themselves up to achieve the "American dream," I refer them to the words of St. Paul: "The laborer is worth his wages." Our failure to pay a just living wage and assure a minimum of reliable health care benefits is a sinful disregard and depraved indifference for the plight of the least empowered among us. Again, for those entrenched in the ultra-conservative mind set, I refer you to the words of Jesus Christ: "When you do this for the least among you, you do this for me."

Below are several links that provide specifics and insight regarding the minimum wage and the issues associated with it:

* -
Economic Policy Institute: Minimum Wage Issues
* - Almanac of Policy Issues: Minimum Wage
* -
US Department of Labor: Fair Labor Standards Act Compliance Assistance
* - CATO: The Economics Of Minimum Wage Legislation - Revisited
* - `Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007' as sent to the Senate
* - Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955–2006 (with equalization for current value)
* - The Sneak Attack on Restaurant Workers, Parking Attendants, Hotel Maids, and Other Workers Who Depend on Tips

Latino migrant farm workers yesterday threatened to sue Ohio if legislators don't reverse a law that exempts them from the state's higher minimum wage that went into effect Jan. 1.

The Farm Labor Organizing Committee said it will organize politically and work with the Ohio AFL-CIO and church leaders to fight what it characterizes as a discriminatory policy affecting as many as 5,000 short-term, piece-rate crop harvesters, about half of whom are illegal.

"We are not going to keep quiet this time," said Lupe Williams, a Spanish language and Hispanic culture lecturer at Ohio State University.

Just before the legislative session ended in December, the General Assembly, solely with Republican votes, passed legislation to implement the new minimum-wage constitutional amendment approved by 57 percent of voters on Nov. 7.

The amendment raised Ohio's minimum wage from the federal level of $5.15 to $6.85 this year and set the stage for annual cost-of-living adjustments thereafter.

In defining "employee" as affected by the law, the General Assembly exempted home health-care, amusement park, fishing industry, and some agricultural workers from the hike.

The bill was signed by Republican Gov. Bob Taft as his term ended, much to the chagrin of his successor, Democrat Gov. Ted Strickland.

Strickland spokesman Keith Dailey said the governor "feels [the exemptions] undermined the will of the people. He is talking with others who share that viewpoint as he weighs his options."

The issue could be resolved in Washington, where the new Democratic majority in the U.S. House rushed through a bill to raise the federal minimum to $7.25 an hour by 2009. The measure has slowed in the Senate over a dispute over business tax breaks.

Mr. Valasquez said migrant farm workers are covered under the current federal minimum wage law, as well as Michigan's new minimum, currently at $6.95 as part of a multiyear phase-in toward $7.40.

"We are not beggars nor social parasites, and we are not asking for a handout, but rather a fair day's pay for a fair day at work," said Baldemar Velasquez, the farm workers' union president from Toledo. "The new minimum wage does not even reflect a just wage for our occupation, but we are grateful to the citizens of Ohio for giving us a higher safety net."

Is It GOP Spin, Or Is It The Dems Engaging In Stupid Scandals?

Pelosi, Two Other Democrats Failed To Disclose Roles In Family Charities

It would appear that Pelosi and the Dems she leads are unable to avoid the trappings of power, including the penchant for scandals, that trapped the GOP in the last few sessions of congress. Perhaps it is time to cast them all out and make everyone in the government to seek their offices again, starting with the executive branch and then congress, and finally the judiciary.

Of course this scandal would have to include the first woman to serve as Speaker as well as one of my own Senators, Evan Bayh, which is no surprise to many of us from Indiana. Neither is it a surprise to see someone from Illinois wrapped up in a scandal, especially since the politics just across the border from where I live are constantly embroiled in some sort of scandalous row over money, influence peddling, nepotism, cronyism or an effort to hide matters that are supposed to be reported.

But then again, it could also be an attempt by the GOP to splatter the Dems with the taint of a scandal to place barriers in front of the legislative agendas, rock the Dems off their footing and spray the other side of the aisle with mud-slinging accusations. After all, it was an ultra-conservative GOP that began the smearing of Clinton and Obama via false accusations (c.f. Feeding Frenzy for a Big Story, Even if It’s False). Given the nature of the pundits on the conservative and ultra-conservative side of the political spectrum (Limbaugh, Hannity & Colmes, O'Reilly, Coulter, et al)

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other prominent Democrats have failed to disclose they are officers of family charities, in violation of a law requiring members of Congress to report non-profit leadership roles.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the fourth-ranking House Democrat, and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana also did not report they serve as family foundation directors, according to financial disclosure reports examined by USA TODAY.

All three foundations are funded and controlled by the lawmakers and their spouses, and do not solicit donations from outside sources.

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said Friday the speaker will amend her reports. He said it "was an oversight" that she had not listed her position dating back to 1992.

Members of Congress and top executive branch officials are required to file yearly reports on their personal finances, including any positions they hold with businesses or non-profits. At least 16 other lawmakers from both parties have reported holding similar positions, records show.

Bayh spokeswoman Meghan Keck said it was "simply an oversight" that he did not disclose his charity role. Bayh has since amended his reports, Keck said.

Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Conference, does not believe the law requires him to disclose his foundation post, spokeswoman Kathleen Connery said. "We believe we're following the instructions of the (ethics) committee exactly right, but if we're not, we'll amend our report," she said.