Jim Downey's Rants & Raves On Just About Everything

The Cultural Oppression Of Working People

2011-02-26T23:50:00.000-08:00

Wisconsin Assembly Passes Anti-Union Bill as Senate Democrats Stay Away

Over shouts of protest from Democrats, the Republican-controlled Wisconsin State Assembly passed a bill in the early morning hours Friday that would strip state employees of most of their collective bargaining rights. But there was no sign that a stalemate over the proposal would end, as Democrats in the Senate remained out of the state after fleeing to prevent their own vote on the proposal.

What we are witnessing in Wisconsin, Indiana and other states is no less important than the "social networking revolutions" we have seen in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya and soon, ensha'allah, Iran. The struggle in Bahrain has to do with the equitable distribution of wealth, influence and political power in the face of tyranny, fascism and domination by a minority of that society. Having lived and taught in Bahrain, I know first hand the plight of the Shi'ite majority in that nation. The Sunni ruling class, along with a handful of wealthy and influential Shi'ite families that have been co-opted into the ruling class, have all the benefits offered by the government of Bahrain. While the nation offers free health care and education, the quality of both are not of the highest caliber. There was, when I was in Bahrain, one private school run by St. Christopher's Episcopal Church that followed the British system of education and offered a value for the price paid.

But workers in Bahrain were predominantly expatriots from Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Great Britain and the US. Most Arab citizens of Bahrain did not usually work because of the social welfare system in place. Even if such a system was not in place, the level of education available to most Bahraini children was not such that it would have prepared the future generations for the world of work. Even the private school options were not all the effective, organized or focused on achievement.

Just like what we are/have been seeing in the "Maghreb" of North Africa and the Mesopotamian/Gulf parts of the Muslim world, we are beginning to see that same disdain, unfair treatment and fascist efforts to deny working people their rights in Wisconsin, California, Arizona and Indiana. We must give props out to the Wisconsin legislators that have taken a stance against such fascism, as well as to Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana who took the high ground (at least in this case) and proposed that Indiana Republicans back off the copycat approach to anti-union, anti-worker legislation. But before I get carried away offering praise for Daniels, let us remember that he is gearing up for a presidential run with promises to slash Social Security and other benefit programs for the working people that pay the majority of taxes for our state and federal governments.

How can anyone justify giving big business a $142 MILLION tax break and thereafter seeking cuts in pay, benefits and rights for working people... and call it fair, reasonable or even American?

We Americans have been cheering the search for social justice around the world all the while ignoring the streak of fascism that is overtaking us at home. It is time for the majority of Americans to wake up and smell what the conservatives have been shoveling under the guise of "fiscal conservatism," but is actually a war on working people. It is also time that the Christians among us begin to recognize that what the conservatives and neo-conservatives--in politics and in religion--are offering is anti-Christian and AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST! A Woody Guthrie song entitled Jesus Christ says it all...

The Revolutionary African/Middle Eastern World

2011-02-24T16:42:00.000-08:00

What has been happening in Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt and now Libya has been coming for over a decade. In 1995-1996 I taught in a private K-12 school in Bahrain, with some of my responsibilities taking me into "The Kingdom" (Saudi Arabia) on many occasions. It was clear then that the Sunni minority, along with some very wealthy Shi'ite business people, were the powerful in Manama and other parts of Bahrain and the Gulf Arab States. While Bahrain is considered one of the more liberal Gulf States (you can buy pork products in Bahrain, for example), the Amir at the time was struggling with what to do with the Shi'ite majority that would protest by blowing up store fronts and other structures using makeshift bombs that relied upon LPG tanks as the explosive base.

But the public schools in Bahrain are not very good. The Labor Ministry does not protect workers. The parochial school in the outskirts of Manama was the only decent school in the country. The private school I worked at was run by a family concerned only with the cashflow the school generated, not service to the community, education for its students, or improving the lot of Bahraini citizens.

What we are seeing now in Bahrain has often been blamed on rabble-rousing by sources in Iran, which is PARTLY true, but not the entirety of the situation nor the entirety of the truth. The real truth of the matter is that the vast majority of Bahraini citizens do not have an adequate education, lack working skills, are paid benefits by the state/royal family, and most of the workers in the tiny island nation come from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, the Philipines or other nations where expatriot workers can be had for cheap money and can be exploited as slave labor.

At the school I worked at we had about 8 Sri Lankan workers that worked six days a week, often 14-16 hours per day, and were physically and psychologically abused by the owners of the school for less than $120 US per month. I suppose we should be grateful we live and work in the US, but we are seeing the mighty, the powerful and wealthy attack the hard workers of our nation with greater hostility, aggression and arguments that don't hold up under genuine scrutiny.

What is happening in Libya is related to the insanity--as illustrated by Qaddhafi's rambling, nonsensical news conferences where he blames Arab youths taking "hallucinogenic pills"--that Col. Qaddhafi and his family has imposed upon the Libyan people since the middle of the 1960s.

What we saw in Egypt is no less surprising. That similar stirrings are happening in Oman, Qatar, Yemen, Iran and other fascist-controlled African and Middle Eastern nations is no surprise either.

But while our collective eyes are facing East into the Mahgreb (North Africa) and the Muslim parts of the Middle East, we should be mindful of the fascism, industrialism and ultra-conservativism that is threatening the progressive policies that made the US what is has been in its heyday.

It's Been Over A Year... And I Miss Blogging

2008-08-03T18:52:00.000-07:00

Well, I moved to Arkansas. I found a job teaching and it took up a lot of my energy just adjusting to the culture shock and the wayward vindictiveness of the principal I ended up working for in the process. I can answer the question, "Why does Arkansas have some of the worst schools in the nation."

I never garnered a huge audience when I was blogging full time, but I hope that someone was paying attention. The members of congress, the White House and the judiciary were not paying attention at all.

I do not know where my blogging efforts will lead this coming year, but I know I worry about the pseudo-Christianity I see here in the Bible Belt, as well as the corruption that still pervades our nation's political realms. I am also very concerned with the way Arkansas does its education business.

But I will be writing at least twice a week... Hopefully more.

Deteriorating Infrastructure, Exclusionary Secrecy, And Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Undermining Us All

2007-08-11T18:07:00.000-07:00

States Feel Left Out Of Disaster Planning

If it isn't bad enough that our total infrastructure is in a dismal state of deterioration, now comes Bush and his gang of fascist thugs to propose even more tax cuts that will benefit the top 10% income earners in our nation, all the while spending trillions elsewhere, and cutting basis services and badly needed infrastructure upgrades in our own "homeland."

Once again we see how evil the secret manner in which Bush and company operate undermines our own integrity, general welfare, and national security.

A decision by the Bush administration to rewrite in secret the nation's emergency response blueprint has angered state and local emergency officials, who worry that Washington is repeating a series of mistakes that contributed to its bungled response to Hurricane Katrina nearly two years ago.

State and local officials in charge of responding to disasters say that their input in shaping the National Response Plan was ignored in recent months by senior White House and Department of Homeland Security officials, despite calls by congressional investigators for a shared overhaul of disaster planning in the United States.

"In my 19 years in emergency management, I have never experienced a more polarized environment between state and federal government," said Albert Ashwood, Oklahoma's emergency management chief and president of a national association of state emergency managers.

The national plan is supposed to guide how federal, state and local governments, along with private and nonprofit groups, work together during emergencies. Critics contend that a unilateral approach by Washington produced an ill-advised response plan at the end of 2004 -- an unwieldy, 427-page document that emphasized stopping terrorism at the expense of safeguarding against natural disasters.

Bruce Baughman, Ashwood's predecessor as president of the National Emergency Management Association and a 32-year veteran of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said that a draft of the revised plan released to state officials last week marks a step backward because its authors did not set requirements or consult with field operators nationwide who will use it to request federal aid, adjust state and county plans, and train workers.

Bush May Try to Cut Corporate Tax Rates: President Cites Need To Compete Globally

A careful study of our corporate tax rate--after all the loopholes, shelters, scams and frauds are taken into account--will reveal that the average tax paid by big corporations is 5% or less. The corporate tax rate is supposed to be 35%. If all the big businesses paid their fair share of taxes--the full 35%--we would be able to fund all of our infrastructure needs, all of our education needs, and all of our welfare needs without ever having to raid Social Security, privatize anything, or screw with the taxes of the average taxpayer. But that is not what this president, or anyone in Congress, really wants for us. They have all abandoned the principles embedded in our Constitution, and completely ignored the stated purposes of our government as laid out in the Preamble of our Constitution.

President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure.

Advisers presented Bush with a series of ideas to restructure corporate taxes, possibly eliminating narrowly targeted breaks to pay for a broader, across-the-board rate cut. In an interview with a small group of journalists afterward, Bush said he was "inclined" to send a corporate tax package to Congress, although he expressed uncertainty about its political viability.

The president's comments came as he tried to calm volatile stock and mortgage markets and reassure the country that the economy is fundamentally strong. Despite mounting concern over the downturn in the housing market, he dismissed proposals advanced by prominent Democrats to grant government-chartered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more freedom to buy mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. And he ruled out any taxpayer bailout of lenders threatened by the subprime home-loan crisis.

But what is not being mentioned is that the banking industry and mortgage companies have done this to themselves through excessive valuation of real estate, usury in lending practices, and de facto redlining of prime real estate.

A good example of this is a piece of property my wife's aunt and uncle bought as a retirement place on East Lake in Holly Grove, Arkansas. Three years ago the property was assessed at $88,000. Most recently, despite the fact that the real estate market is suffering a severe downturn and banks are having trouble managing the mortgage market, the assessment was adjusted for increased value and improvements at $175,000.

Now, anyone that has traveled through most of Arkansas can attest, the housing market and property values down here are severely depressed and there is a lot of property that is vacant, dilapidated, and left for the tax man to auction off (the last auction notice newspaper for my neck of Arkansas had over 400 pieces of property for sale by the state assessor). So how is it that my wife's relatives have suffered almost a 100% increase in property value over three short years? The tax man, the bankers, and those that run the real estate processes in this nation are deliberately trying to price these "good" properties out of the hands of those that dare to use their meager life savings toward assuring their last few years won't be spent in abject poverty. But these real estate manipulators want this property to go to wealthier folks so they can all get a bigger cut of the pie when these properties are sold, assessed, improved, mortgaged, or subject of equity loans.

But none of the money garnered by these folks will be spent on improving our services, our infrastructure, or our lot in life... never mind national security or safety.

Meanwhile, the Enron-like fraud that David Sirota speaks to in his "Hostile Takeover" book continues to rape us all:

Bankruptcy Trustee Sues Big Investor in Refco

And corporate big wigs are allowed to pocket all kinds of money while subjecting workers to unsafe conditions, bilking of their retirement funds based on phony claims of corporate hardship, and a general screwing over of the American working stiff:

Collapse Is Latest Fight For Coal's Best Friend

And there is more proof that we working stiffs are not getting a fair deal:

Masters of the Economy

And of course our entire farming subsidy approach is skewed toward the big money, screwing over some of the hardest working stiffs in our nation: the small farmer:

The Farmer’s Nightmare?

Of course, we shouldn't blame just Bush and his GOP puppets, because the Democrats are just as busy buying into exclusion, secrecy, abandonment of principle and a general screwing over of the average American and the average American family.

Warrantless Surrender: Congress is Stampeded into Another Compromise of Americans' Rights

And, as we are always being told, our money is being well-spent in places other than the US:

Weapons Given to Iraq Are Missing: GAO Estimates 30% of Arms Are Unaccounted For

A genuine example of how the "war over there" is making it safer for us over here.

Manipulating The Polls, The Press, The Media & The Rest Of Us

2007-08-11T17:35:00.000-07:00

When a Poll Is Not Really a Poll

We can no longer rely on the polls offered to us as proof that something is, or is not, true, wanted, desired, or in the mainstream of public opinion. Anyone with genuine training in survey, poll and social research methods can attest that over 70% of the polls and surveys taken are poorly designed, have an inherent (and greatly desired) bias in the way questions are offered, and are eventually manipulated before being released to the general public. Even the major polling houses--even the once revered Gallop organization--are releasing polls, surveys and research results that are inherently flawed, often by design.

The research coming out of many--if not most--research centers affiliated with major colleges and universities are under increased scrutiny because the people conducting them are either poorly trained in the methodologies, or are deliberately skewing the results because it will enhance their careers, their influence, or their cash flow from the organizations conducting the polls. Most of the major think tanks have not only an ideological bias, but are deliberately funded by industry and/or political sources that want a specific result. The Brookings Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Democratic Leadership Council, Enterprise Institute, and many other think tanks are biased by not only the ideology and the funding sources, but also by the hiring practices that do not allow competing viewpoints to be expressed in a scholarly manner.

Now we have the GOP holding a straw poll that requires those that wish to participate to pay a fee. This, of course, violates the first rule of thumb regarding legitimate polls: randomization. If only those willing to pay for participating in a GOP political poll are included in the process and outcome, then there is inherently a skew toward those willing to financially support the current GOP leadership.

Even in polls and research that are aimed at a political party and ideology should observe the rules about randomization... but we are living in an era where even the corruption of Tamany Hall, the Teapot Dome Scandal, and Watergate are surpassed in regard to audacity, willingness to do almost anything for control, and plain old manipulative bovine excrement.

It appears that the real goal of this manipulation is to raid the pockets of loyal Republican die-hards and load the coffers of the RNC with "soft money" that can be used outside of the rules that restrict particular candidates. The question now becomes which candidate will the RNC be pushing down out throats after it gets all this soft money? Of course, we can almost guarantee it won't go to support an underdog candidate that might actually have something other than the usual Washington insider bovine excrement and manipulation to offer.

High on the list of superpowers a campaign might wish for would be the ability to manipulate opinion surveys, and on Saturday in Ames, Iowa, Republican presidential contenders will get to live that dream through the Iowa straw poll.

The event, a tradition in election cycles in which there is no GOP incumbent, is billed as an indicator of how party members will vote in the Republican caucus in January. But while no one can stage-manage a random telephone poll, it is open season when any voting-age Iowan or Iowa college student with a $35 ticket has a say.

Few of the 40,000 people who are expected to descend on Iowa State University on Saturday have to reach into their own pockets to pay to participate in the so-called poll. The campaigns are more than happy to cover the entrance fee -- and so much more.

Republican presidential candidates looking to score high in the straw poll lure Iowans to Ames with not only free tickets, but also transportation, food and entertainment.

Before heading in to give a short speech, candidates will hold forth in the tents that each campaign rents around the Hilton Coliseum. (In 1999, President Bush, who carried the day, paid $43,500 for his well-located pavilion and $62,000 for pulled-pork sandwiches.) This year's favorite, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, advertises "music, barbecue and a whole lot of fun at our tent" on his Web site.

The proceeds from ticket sales, tent rentals, parking, etc., will go to the Iowa Republican Party, making the straw poll a bald money-making venture for the state GOP. A former state finance chairman said as much in stark terms to the Online NewsHour: "The Iowa straw poll was devised as a fundraising gimmick for the state party and nothing more than that."

Romney's Cash Beckons Iowans To Straw Poll

Walking A Hard Line On Campaign Trail in Iowa: Can Anti-Immigration Fervor Keep Tancredo in the Race?

More Bad News From The Brits... We Don't Want Any Part Of US's War Crimes

2007-08-11T15:44:00.000-07:00

British Criticize Air Attacks in Afghan Region

Now that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister for Great Britain, we may see more actions of this type. Clearly the British are responding to international pressure to distance themselves from some of the actions taken by US forces and the Pentagon because they clearly violate international law, treaties signed and ratified by the US, and general decency.

Some of my friends are serving in Afghanistan and they are disgusted with the things that are ongoing in that part of the world. They are seeing the fraud and failures first hand, as well as efforts to minimize the fallout, media attention and revelations by troops vis e-mail and letters sent home.

A senior British commander in southern Afghanistan said in recent weeks that he had asked that American Special Forces leave his area of operations because the high level of civilian casualties they had caused was making it difficult to win over local people.

Other British officers here in Helmand Province, speaking on condition of anonymity, criticized American Special Forces for causing most of the civilian deaths and injuries in their area. They also expressed concerns that the Americans’ extensive use of air power was turning the people against the foreign presence as British forces were trying to solidify recent gains against the Taliban.

It takes a lot for a career military officer--in any nation's military command structure--to speak out in this manner. There is a hell of a lot of inherent pressure to shut up, toe the line, and follow orders. But there is a line that good career officers do not willingly cross because it is a violation of international law, a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), specific military regulations (each branch has its own set of regulations), and constitute crimes against humanity.

So, when senior commanders speak, even under the cloak of anonymity, we should listen carefully... and heed the very idea that they are speaking out as a warning that something is gravely amiss.

An American military spokesman denied that the request for American forces to leave was ever made, either formally or otherwise, or that they had caused most of the casualties. But the episode underlines differences of opinion among NATO and American military forces in Afghanistan on tactics for fighting Taliban insurgents, and concerns among soldiers about the consequences of the high level of civilians being killed in fighting.

It is not surprising that US spokespersons are denying these things. Denial is the first line of defense in the military public relations handbook. But even more significant is the fact that denial is the first and only rule under the Bush administration's fouled up way of proceeding when it comes to the so-called "war on terror," the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the criminality of its military strategy and actions.

Most of us having served honorably in the US military are ashamed of the way Bush has conducted himself and issued orders in regard to these matters. The use of torture to coerce prisoners is a dishonorable act on the part of any soldier. It is inherently evil and we--the United States--have chastised and criminalized such acts on the part of our enemies in Germany during both World Wars, the Koreans and Chinese during the Korean War, the Vietnamese during that subsequent war, and by those regimes that have routinely used such approaches, including North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile, Iran, and elsewhere. But we have been two-faced and hypocritical in the past by allowing other nations to enjoy our aid and support while enduring such criminal actions.

These are criminal acts... and we helped to define them as such by the treaties and international laws that we have helped to establish.

A precise tally of civilian deaths is difficult to pin down, but one reliable count puts the number killed in Helmand this year at close to 300 civilians, the vast majority of them caused by foreign and Afghan forces, rather than the Taliban.

“Everyone is concerned about civilian casualties,” the senior British commander said. “Of course it is counterproductive if civilians get injured, but we’ve got to pick up the pack of cards that we have got. Other people have been operating in our area before us.”

Of course there isn't a precise tally of the casualties: we haven't bothered to count, or even cared to count. But I can empathize with the senior British commander because I have had to pick up after some other idiot has mucked up the project or campaign. I hate picking up after someone else has already shat upon the works.

It is these American teams that are coming under criticism. They tend to work in small units that rely heavily on air cover because they are vulnerable to large groups of insurgents. Such Special Forces teams have often called in airstrikes in Helmand and other places where civilians have subsequently been found to have suffered casualties.

In just two cases, airstrikes killed 31 nomads west of Kandahar in November last year and another 57 villagers, half of them women and children, in western Afghanistan in April. In both cases, United States Special Forces were responsible for calling in the airstrikes.

The use of air strikes indiscriminately is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. In fact, under these conventions and the UN Charter, aggressor troops are required to use specific caution when operating in areas populated by civilians, especially when calling for artillery and air strikes. Evidently, not only has Bush and company ignored these LAWS, but also his own claim to Christianity, decency and American principles.

But the senior British commander, who spoke on condition of anonymity during an interview in July, said that in Sangin, which has been calm recently, there was no longer a need for United States Special Forces. “There aren’t large bodies of Taliban to fight anymore; we are dealing with small groups and we are trying to kick-start reconstruction and development,” he said.

Orders had just come down from the NATO force’s headquarters in Kabul, which is led by Gen. Dan K. McNeill of the United States, re-emphasizing the need to avoid civilian deaths, he said.

“The phrase is: ‘It may be legal but is it appropriate?’ No one is saying it is illegal to use air power, but is there any other way of doing it if there is a risk of collateral damage?” he said.

People seem to be forgetting that it is only "collateral damage" when it isn't your troops or civilians being killed, wounded or maimed for life. Collateral damage is a euphemism for not really giving a damn who was wounded, maimed or killed, as long as they weren't my friends.

A Predictable Outcome... Even As I Said Months Ago

2007-08-11T14:58:00.000-07:00

As British Leave, Basra Deteriorates: Violence Rises in Shiite City Once Called a Success Story
Months ago, when under the direction of Tony Blair, the British announced that it would be withdrawing troops from Basra and other southern parts of Iraq just when the US was launching a predictable failure policy of troop surge and retention "in country," I predicted that Basra and other parts of Iraq would erupt in sectarian violence.

Indeed, that has been the case. My information is that the mainstream media is just now getting hold of this information and that the decline into violence and disorder has been ongoing since shortly after the British announced to the world the withdrawal and troop downsizing effort. While the violence is currently between Shi'ites, it is still sectarian in nature because it is based upon the alliance to one of three religious leaders laying claim to leadership for all of the region. Of course, Iranian Shi'ite clerics vying for power in and around Iran are also involved, even if the Iranian government is not.

As British forces pull back from Basra in southern Iraq, Shiite militias there have escalated a violent battle against each other for political supremacy and control over oil resources, deepening concerns among some U.S. officials in Baghdad that elements of Iraq's Shiite-dominated national government will turn on one another once U.S. troops begin to draw down.

Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said.

Why The Rich Get Richer... Congress Gives Them More Than We Regular Folks

2007-08-03T00:46:00.000-07:00

America’s Most Coddled

Senator Charles Schumer got partway off the fence this week on the issue of whether the most highly paid Americans — mainly partners at hedge funds and private equity firms — should continue to enjoy a super-low tax rate. Currently, at a typical hedge fund or private equity firm, partners pay a flat tax of 15 percent on most of their mega-earnings. Salaried employees and wage earners — the majority of the work force — face income tax rates as high as 35 percent.

That's right folks, those of us that put the sweat in sweat equity can pay as much as 35% to the tax man, but those of us that do nothing but deposit cash into already fat accounts pay 15%, or less if their funds manager is astute enough to use off-shore accounts, take advantage of tax write-offs, or use tax shelters in an efficient manner.

But you and I cannot take advantage of these very same loopholes, shelters and methods of defrauding the tax man because we are not allowed the same deductions as the very wealthy or the big corporations. According to David Sirota's research, most big corporations pay 5% income tax because they are given so many tax incentives, tax-free subsidies, protectionistic import-export subsidies, and deductions we cannot access. For instance, even though our real estate transactions are a major plank of our retirement and investment strategies--and despite the fact that our mortgage agreements require us to maintain, repair and improve the property--we cannot deduct the cost of repairs, maintenance or improvement except in terms of the interest we pay on any loans we take out. But a corporation can deduct ALL of its costs for maintenance, repairs, upkeep and improvement... in its entirety, amortized over several years. If a corporation decides to lease a vehicle, a property, or equipment, the deduction is not amortized, but taken at full value as it is incurred.

Not only do the wealthy have more access, more influence, and more control over our government, but they do not have to pay for it like the rest of us. We get screwed over by them and our political leaders on a daily basis... and they take a bite out of our salaries as well through usury and unprincipled business practices, including outright consumer fraud that our governments (state and federal) allow to occur freely (i.e. bank fees, late charges on credit cards, over-the-limit fees on credit cards, and gas prices).

The Farm Bill Continues A Legacy Of Fraud, Graft & Power-Brokering

2007-08-03T00:06:00.000-07:00

I’m Ripping You Off

That’s right: taxpayers are subsidizing a New York columnist not to plant crops in a forest in Oregon.

That's right, folks, the government is still paying rich folks to plant--or in some cases, not to plant--crops that do not contribute to the economy in a meaningful manner, except to make rich individuals and big agro-businesses richer, or at least tax exempt in some manner or another.

Farm Subsidies Seem Immune To an Overhaul

Farm-state lawmakers expected to prevail in keeping old farm subsidies largely in place, thwarting bipartisan effort to overhaul system and in spite of White House threat of veto; federal payments have long been criticized as enriching big farm interests, violating trade agreements and neglecting small family farms; Speaker Nancy Pelosi, critic of farm subsidies, helps to secure more modest changes, pushing House Agriculture Committee to provide $1.8 billion for programs that aid fruit and vegetable growers and deflating some traditional opposition to farm bill; she notes that bill ends subsidies for richest farmers and closes loophole that let some farmers exceed subsidy limits by owning partnerships in multiple farms; critics in Congress say measure will perpetuate overly generous subsidy system at time when American farmers are well-positioned to weather changes

As taxpayers we have been led to believe that the tax exemptions and subsidies contained in the "farm bill" helps the family farmer and the small to mid-size farming business. But the way it works is that the larger corporate farming industry grabs a lot of these funds, leaving the family farmer, the small-to-mid-size farmer, and the average taxpayer in the wind. Pelosi can claim that this newest version of the farm bill closes some of the loopholes, but it just isn't so. In fact, many analysts agree that it created more holes than it closed. This bill just demonstrates that the Democrats are equally as inept, corrupt and stupid as the Republicans were during their last reign of terror on the American family, taxpayers, and infrastructure.

We need a farm bill that subsidizes producers of quality food crops, not something that makes the farming industry giants richer. We need a farm bill that encourages independent production of legacy and heirloom varieties, organic produce, and high quality food crops. We need to cease subsidies for cotton, tobacco and other crops that are produced for the larger profit=at-all-cost corporations, like R.J. Reynolds and its subsidiaries. We need to cease subsidizing crops that are primarily for export and let the natural market fluctuations control the price of these crops (i.e. milo, cotton, tobacco, feed corn), as well as subsidizing the American divisions of companies like Chiquita Brands that engage in illegal (and immoral) subsidization of terrorists and drug peddling paramilitary rebels in Central and South America. We need to return to basic American values, including above board business operations, placing stringent restrictions on how corporations can deposit its graft into the pockets of our political leaders in exchange for enhanced access and influence peddling, profiteering and fraud that is overlooked by our Congress and Executive Branch, and the overall screwing of those of us that hand over a third of our income to a government we can no longer trust.

Minneapolis Bridge Is Symptom Of Major Infrastructure Decay

2007-08-02T18:35:00.000-07:00

Interstate Bridge Collapses Into Mississippi River in Minneapolis

Dozens Missing as Minneapolis Search Efforts Are Halted

Problems With Bridge Uncovered in 1990: Minnesota Officials Warned Span Was 'Structurally Deficient'

3-D Animation of Bridge Collapse

Having traveled by car around and throughout this nation, I can almost certainly guarantee that the bridge collapse in Minneapolis will not be the last bridge over the Mississippi to collapse over the next 10 years. In fact, now that I live in Arkansas, and cross an older steel structure bridge into Mississippi at least two or three times every three or four months, I can guarantee that a lot of the bridges connect east to west (and vice versa) are in danger because they are neglected in the same manner as the bridge in Minnesota, and the levees in Louisiana.

In Massachusetts there has been concern over bridge infrastructure for over 20 years, yet the amount of work done to shore up and maintain these bridges are almost nil. Even when work has been done, the type of work amounts to a band-aid on a gaping wound, or a drop in a bucket considering the work that needs to be done.

Then again, the amount of fraud associated with federal and state infrastructure projects are illustrated by the amount of failures and cost overruns--as well as outright fraudulent billing--associated with the multi-billion dollars spent on the "Big Dig." The engineering design of the "Big Dig" was quite sound. However, the use of substandard materials and methods have caused collapsed tunnels and bridge problems.

Then, too, we have a much neglected inner coastal waterway along the entire Eastern Seaboard that places almost all of our shipping in danger of attack, terrorist attack, or problems of running aground.

The rebuilding of levees in Louisiana--when they are rebuilt--are once again adhering to standards and dimensions that will once again lead to disaster. The Army Corps of Engineers, which was once the epitome of professional excellence in all types of engineering, is now a political football, much in the same way as is the EPA, the entire Department of the Interior, and especially our National Parks systems.

The Mississippi has become treacherous to navigate in many spots because the money we once spent on dredging and maintaining this vital waterway is no longer allocated, or even spent in appropriate ways. In fact, the casinos operating alongside of the Mighty Muddy Mississippi spend more money on maintaining their "waterway status" than most states spend on such things.

Meanwhile, we are spending so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan that estimates now reach as high as 1.5 TRILLION--that's right, TRILLION--on projects that are neither being built in a timely manner, nor according to any standards that would be acceptable to even the least trained taxpayer. In one such case, KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, requested payment of over 40% of the contracted price for administrative costs without having built one single structure or even having the proper materials delivered... and our government paid it, without a blink of an eye.

We are--and have been for decades--neglecting our highways, bridges, ports, waterways, railways and airports. We are wasting millions on unnecessary and ineffective airport security methods than on maintaining sufficient runways and safety measures. We are wasting even more millions on secret spying and data collection methods and programs than on efficient ways to assure we can prevent terrorist attacks on our nuclear, chemical and biological infrastructure. When we add the overall neglect of our railways and highways, and the overall neglect regarding HAZMAT and incident response, we see that our nation is vulnerable to the nth degree.

The programs of railway and highway infrastructure--as well as safety and security--that were started by Eisenhower as a means of protecting our nation (all of our interstate highways were initially designed to allow the US military to respond to incidents) are being ignored and neglected.

How many lives must be lost before our leaders will return to standards of decency, true representation and the clarion call of fairness? While our politicians are busy thumping their collective chests on who is better at defending our nation, our risks, dangers and threats rise exponentially... and are ignored while we spend millions on corporations that are defrauding us out of taxes, royalties, subsidies, no-bid contracts and projects that undermine all of the infrastructure laid down by Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson.

What the hell is going on in Washington? A question we need to ask ourselves over the next four election cycles as we considered removing all the pieces of rectal tissue that have been reaching into our collective tax pockets without providing a return on the investment, taking millions in corporate bribes in the form of campaign contributions, and in lining their pockets and beefing up their influence and control dossiers in our Capitol.

The Pathway To Our Prejudices

2007-07-30T22:22:00.000-07:00

Last Saturday I called my sister just to touch bases and let her know I was thinking of her. When she got on the line she sounded depressed, stressed and worried. Upon my inquiry she revealed that money was once again really tight and that the worries of home ownership and making ends meet were eating at her soul.

In her frustration she began discussing issues at her work where a certain African-American co-worker had asserted her right to a higher paid position because of her skin color. She began a diatribe about how minorities were getting a better deal from the government because of such assertions. Much of what she began to spout in frustration was the same crap that many ultra-conservatives spew forth without really examining the facts. It was all emotion and exaggeration of the small tidbits of information that have been misreported by politicians and the media, especially by those politicians and media celebs that make a ton of money being hypocrites, bigots and outright clumps of rectal tissue.

One of the things she tried to convince me about was that "whites are becoming a minority" in the United States. While it is true that the minority populations of this nation are experiencing growth, the "white population" is in no danger of becoming a minority for some time. Currently, the best estimates of our population indicate that one-third of our population is considered minority. The white population has fluctuated between 1-3% over the last decade, and currently showing that 74% of our 304.4 million people are considered white.

Our Hispanic population is reported as our fastest growing minority population segment. The term Hispanic encompasses a wide array of ethnic and racial origins that involves some derivative of the Spanish culture, including all of the Spanish-speaking nations of South America, the Spanish-speaking nations of Central America, Mexico, and the Spanish-speaking cultures of the Caribbean. Depending upon where you live in the US, these cultures and ethnic groups are represented in larger identifiable communities. In New York City, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Columbians and Ecuadorians are among the most identifiable Hispanic communities. In Boston, there are large Puerto Rican, Guatemalan, Dominican and a noticeable number of Chileans in some places. In Chicago, the Hispanic communities that are most noticeable are the Chicano (Mexican Americans), Puerto Ricans and Cubans. In Miami, the largest Hispanic group is obviously Cuban, but also Puerto Rican, Dominican, Columbian and Salvadorian. In Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, the Mexicans and Chicano communities are most noticeable, but we also see many folks from Central America. Southern California is also has a lot of Mexicans and Chicanos, but has a large representation of many of the Hispanic cultures, especially in San Diego and Los Angeles.

But, overall, even with the rapid growth rate among Hispanic minorities, as well as the number of so-called illegal immigrants, the Hispanic population of the United States is somewhere between 7% and 10%.

The Black community represents approximately 15% of our overall population. I use the term "Black" rather than African-American because not all black people identify themselves as "African-American." However, even those folks that do not identify themselves as "African-American," claim the identity of being "Black."

The Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander community represents less than 1% of our total population. Even with the influx of Southeast Asian immigrants from Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos and Indonesia, the Asian population of the US remains consistently in the 4%-6% range. Native American peoples, despite the frequency of press coverage over casino operations and such, represent less than 1% of our overall population.

Most of our Arab population is included in the Asian tally, if not the African-American groups.

The point of this survey of our population is that our "common understanding" of minority populations in our society is significantly over-estimated, exaggerated and misrepresented... and targeted by the ultra-conservatives, certain politicians, a whole bunch of rednecks, and the media as fodder for the "blame game" that we are manipulated into believing. My sister was falling into that very same trap until I began to challenge her understanding of the genuine facts.

We are so manipulated by the proponents of blaming minorities that we are often led to believe that either these minorities are the cause of huge welfare fraud bills, or the benefactors of some form of government handouts that allow them to live in the lap of luxury. In reality--a reality that is not often examined completely by those that blame our minority communities for our hardships--the vast majority of welfare payouts are made to poor white families, not minorities. This same genuine reality demonstrates that, while there is some significant welfare fraud committed by 1%-3% of welfare recipients, the entire bill for such fraud doesn't equal the fraud committed by huge corporations like Halliburton and its subsidiaries under the numerous no-bid contracts awarded for the purposes of conducting our illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, never mind our activities in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Another reality is that when we discuss "welfare," most ultra-conservatives use figures that include Medicare and Social Security in the aggregate figures. However, both Medicare and Medicare are supported by payroll deductions submitted on the behalf of every worker receiving a paycheck under $200,000 per year. But, those of us making over $200,000 do not necessarily pay the same percentage of their check toward these programs. Additionally, Social Security has been a program that has been deliberately mismanaged by Congress since the late 1960s, prompted by ever-increasing tax cuts for the very wealthy, the raiding of Social Security surpluses when times were "tough," and the overall failure of the Social Security Administration to properly track and manage the funds deposited.

Fundamentally, Social Security is not welfare. It is the payout premium for payments made into the system. While it is true that more money is being paid out than decades past, it is also true that more money is being deposited into the system as well. The same is true for Medicare. Those of us with a paycheck notice that a chunk of our gross pay goes to Medicare. The truth about Medicare is that it, too, is largely mismanaged and only serves about half of the elderly in this country. It is also true that because money has been severely cut from public health and prevention programs, the costs of Medicare have gone up because many chronic conditions are not treated until Medicare eligibility kicks in. A good number of our elderly are suffering with the results of chronic conditions that are worsened by the fact that they are not eating sufficiently, due in large part to cuts in funding for "Meals On Wheels" and other intervention programs.

In his recent book, "Hostile Takeover...", David Sirota documents and demonstrates how our basest notions and emotions are manipulated by our politicians and ultra-conservatives--including many who lie to us about how they support working families--from both sides of the political arena into believing that our tax burdens are too heavy and that our minority populations and handouts to the elderly, welfare queens, and perpetrators of welfare fraud (mostly identified as people of color) are the cause of these burdens.

The truth of these matters, as documented and demonstrated by Sirota, is that we are paying 300-500 times as much as our welfare payouts to huge corporate entities that are posting record-breaking profits, taking huge tax breaks and manipulating huge tax loopholes (like having a fraudulent "headquarters office" in the Cayman Islands), and paying off politicians to keep these loopholes, incentives and subsidies (i.e. the farm subsidies that largely benefit huge agro-businesses) alive and well. If we add these tax evasions to the huge amounts of money paid out in exaggerated bills submitted by defense contractors--many of whom are behind schedule in terms of delivering on their contracts and are kingpins in applying tax loopholes--our welfare payouts, with the Social Security and Medicare amounts included, pale in comparison. Even if we threw in the amount we spend on education, the numbers would pale in comparison.

But we are led to believe that we have someone else to blame for our heavy burdens and the difficulties we face trying to make ends meet. We are told by Cheney and Bush--both of whom make money from the big oil companies and those industries dependent upon our appetite for petroleum--that the price we are paying at the pump is not usury... only to find out these very same oil companies are not paying the full amounts of gas and oil royalties required by law, are often late when they do pay, and are receiving all kinds of tax credits that aid their bottom line but do not benefit the average American in the slightest way.

I believe that if we could get half of all American taxpayers to read Sirota's book, we would have such an outrage about how things are being falsely represented to us, we would either vote out all the pieces of rectal tissue currently holding office, or demand better management of our tax dollars in compliance of the constitutional requirement of "promoting the general welfare" rather than kowtowing to the corporations that are paying their executives 300-900 times the average salary of most American workers while falsely claiming all kinds financial hardships, laying off workers to facilitate exporting jobs, and paying our politicians to keep our laws and tax structure skewed in favor of the already too rich and too dishonest.

A Prime Example Of Education Policy Gone Wrong

2007-07-28T00:47:00.000-07:00

Bredesen Frustrated by Board of Regents Pace on 'Wal-Mart 101'- By ERIK SCHELZIG | Associated Press Writer

Why a Democrat like Governor Bredesen would choose to re-establish the corrupt links between the high schools/community colleges and industries that operate in an exploitive manner is beyond me. Perhaps the governor has never read Michael Katz's work on the history of higher eduction, or Richard Dorson's The Land of the Millrats, both of which outline the fundamental problems with aligning secondary and post-secondary education with specific skill sets and curriculum for exploitation by specific industries.

So-called "Big Box Retailers," especially Wal-Mart and K-Mart, have a long and well-established history of worker exploitation, including violation of overtime laws, falsely accusing workers of theft (even though there is a lot of insider theft at such places), failure to provide proper breaks and lunch periods, purposefully arranging schedules to avoid allowing workers to establish seniority or preferred scheduling (i.e. Mother's Hours), as well as verbal and psychological abuse from supervisors and managers.

Wal-Mart has made national headlines on its problems adhering to employment and labor laws. K-Mart had such issues hit the papers before it became part of the Sears' family. Back on the east coast--where Bredesen originally hails--there were all kinds of "big box retailers" like Almy's, Rich's, Krazy Eddie's, Ann & Hope, and others that were famous for such abusive and exploitive relations with workers. Even the store-level management did not provide much better treatment. Big box grocery chains from the east coast--like Shaws, Star Market, Stop & Shop, Market Basket, Piggly Wiggly--have had run-ins with unions over the treatment of employees.

So, when I read that Bredesen and the community college governance boards were seeking to develop a "Wal-Mart 101" curriculum, I was confused, shocked and appalled. One would have thought that Bredesen had abandoned the principles of the Democratic Party, support for workers, and joined the GOP's ultra-conservatives. Perhaps he hasn't completely abandoned the party, but has become a "Boll Weevil Democrat" since he moved to the Mid-South? It may be that Bredesen has abandoned no only the Democratic Party's principles, but also any semblance of the Christian teaching offered by St. Paul: "The worker is worth his wages."

In any case, I would recommend that Governor Bredesen, the Board of Regents, and any community college seeking to develop such a curriculum read the following texts:

Sirota, David. "Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--And How We Take It Back", Three Rivers Press, 2007

Lerner, Michael. "The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right", Harpers - San Francisco, 2006

Dorson, Richard. "The Land of the Millrats", Harvard University Press, 1981

Katz, Donald R. "The Big Store: Inside the Crisis and Revolution at Sears", Penguin, 1988

Levering, Katz and Moskowitz. "EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS, A Field Guide to the 400 Leading Companies in America", Doubleday, 1990

Katz, Michael B. "Improving Poor People", Princeton University Press, 1997

Katz, Michael B. "The Undeserving Poor", Pantheon, 1990

Katz, Michael B. "The 'Underclass' Debate", Princeton University Press, 1992

Katz, Michael B. "Education in American History: Readings on the Social Issues", International Thompson Publishing, 1973

Katz, Michael B. "The Irony of Early School Reform: Educational Innovation in Mid-Nineteenth Century Massachusetts", Teachers College Press, 2001

Ryan, William. "Blaming the Victim", Vintage, 1976

Quinn, Bill. "How Walmart Is Destroying America And The World: And What You Can Do About It", Ten Speed Press, 2005

Norman, Al. "The Case Against Wal-Mart", Raphel Marketing, 2004

Fishman, Charles "The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works--and How It's Transforming the American Economy", Penguin, 2006

Ehrenreich, Barbara. "Bait and Switch : The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream", Metropolitan Books (Holt), 2005

Ehrenreich, Barbara. "Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America", Holt Paperbacks, 2002

Smith, Hedrick and Young, Rick "Is Wal-Mart Good For America?", PBS Frontline, November 16, 2004"

Goodman, Amy "Chicago's Big box Ordinance", PBS POV/Democracy Now, July 31, 2006

Brancaccio, David. "A Conversation With Barbara Ehrnereich", PBS Now, August 28, 2006

Roman, Raphael Pi (moderator). "The Working Poor In New York City", PBS POV, August 29, 2006

Peled, Micha. "Store Wars: When Wal-Mart Comes To Town", PBS

Bhatnagar, Parija. "Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza? Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond", CNN.com (http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/index.htm)

It's been nearly a year since Gov. Phil Bredesen announced a proposal to create a community college curriculum designed to prepare students to become managers at big-box retailers like Wal-Mart.

Yet there is no sign that any such "Wal-Mart 101" program will be available at two-year schools across the state anytime soon.

Asked in a recent interview with The Associated Press about what the holdup is, Bredesen responded: "The Board of Regents - and the general difficulty of moving things forward in the educational system."

The Board of Regents oversees two-year schools and public universities that are not part of the University of Tennessee system.

"The Board of Regents on that one has not picked up the idea and carried forward on their own in some fashion," Bredesen said.

Bredesen said he prefers state officials to move aggressively on new ideas. He said he'd rather have to tell officials to slow down rather than have to constantly prod them into action.

The governor said that he sometimes has to ask UT President John Petersen to rein in the pace of new programs, but that that rarely occurs with the Board of Regents.

Board of Regents Chancellor Charles Manning could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

Bredesen acknowledged that the Board of Regents may have been distracted by debate during the legislative session over several community-college related subjects like his ultimately doomed proposal to give free tuition to high-school graduates who average a 19 on their ACT college entrance exams. Bredesen has vowed to bring back the community college scholarship proposal next year.

Meanwhile, the state last week announced that as part of Eastman Chemical Co.'s $1.3 billion reinvestment in its Kingsport facilities the state will pour $1 million into tailoring programs at Northeast State Technical Community College to the company's work force needs.

The "Eastman 101" program will address specific job skills for mechanics, lab analysts and chemical operators. The proposal also could benefit other companies in the region because they could hire graduates of the programs.

Although the job training program will be at a Regents college, it won't be available at campuses across the state the way Bredesen envisions the "Wal-Mart 101" program

"We had the opportunity to do the '101' with somebody, so we obviously grabbed that and took it," Bredesen said. "The other one (for big-box retailers) I'm still interested in and we're still pushing for it."

A Response To Dorothy (nee Hunt) Abdelhamid

2007-07-28T00:41:00.000-07:00

Dorothy (nee Hunt) Abdelhamid left a comment regarding "Affirmation Regarding The Confusion Over Sexual Predators": Did or Will my comment get posted?

My policy is to approve almost every comment that is posted, as long as it is pertinent, uses appropriate language, and is focused on the post in question rather than advertising, promoting an ideology, or employing an ad hominem attack. Sometimes I will even respond to the comments posted.

But in this case, I received three anonymous comments to that particular post and none bearing Dorothy's moniker/username. Since I did not receive the comment, it was not there for me to approve. Sorry, but it appears something went wrong between your writing the comment and the server posting it.

Executive Privilege... Or Another Nixon-Style Conspiracy?

2007-07-27T18:30:00.000-07:00

A review of the news reports, proceedings of Congress, the ongoings from the West Wing, and the events that swirl around us demonstrates that this Bush administration is engaging in what amounts to a racketeering approach to government. The very same tactics of law-breaking, circumvention of the rules, claims to rights and privileges to avoid being held responsible, sabotaging or killing enemies, and kowtowing to those entities that provide money (regardless of ethical considerations) used by the mafia and other bodies of organized crime are being used by the Bush gang.

But this is not the first time we have seen this type of behavior coming from our White House. Nixon used these very same tactics while covering up for the Watergate break-ins, the scandal and the investigation that followed the cover-up efforts. Ford followed the Nixon model by pardoning those that broke the "supreme law of the land" and claimed that it was in the best interests of the nation.

Subsequently, both Reagan and the senior Bush used similar tactics and processes while committing crimes against our nation when they actively engaged in the Iran-Contra Affair.

But George W. Bush and his gang of fascist thugs have taken the process to new heights, making all of the past scoundrels, criminals, liars and cheats seem like amateurs.

The links below demonstrate a deliberate process of denying us our right to proper, legal and fair representation from our president and those that serve in his cabinet and the executive branch. Anyone that takes the time to review these reports, as well as previous reports, could not possibly deny that there is a clear and present danger of casting out our Constitution and instituting a fascist regime.

Outright Lies, False Claims & Power-Grabbing

Gonzales Denies Improper Pressure on Ashcroft

FBI Head Contradicts Gonzales Testimony: Lawmakers Want Probe of Attorney General; Rove Subpoenaed

A White House Warning on Contempt Charges

Power Without Limits

Unfree Speech: The Fourth of July is an apt moment to reflect on one of the great underreported stories of our time: the rise of speech regulation. Glance at the First Amendment, but do not think it still applies. Large bodies of political speech are now governed by laws, agency regulations, court decisions and lawyerly interpretations. Speech has become unfree.

Abuse Of Power, Dishonoring Our Troops & Violation Of Our Constitution and Ratified Treaties

Rules Lay Out C.I.A.’s Tactics in Questioning

War Crimes and the White House: The Dishonor in a Tortured New 'Interpretation' of the Geneva Conventions

Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings: Some lawyers say Colonel Abraham’s account — of a hearing procedure that he described as deeply flawed and largely a tool for commanders to rubber-stamp decisions they had already made — may have played an important role in the justices’ highly unusual reversal. That decision once again brought the administration face to face with the vexing legal, political and diplomatic questions about the fate of Guantánamo and the roughly 360 men still held there.

U.S. bending rules on Colombia terror? Several lawmakers say multinationals that aid violent groups in return for protection are not being prosecuted. The lawmakers say that, in the cases of U.S. corporations in Colombia, the Justice Department has failed to adequately enforce U.S. laws that make it a crime to knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization — and they have opened their own investigation.

Pentagon Balked at Pleas from Officers Safer MRAP Vehicles While Iraqi Troops Got MRAPs and Americans Waited... And Died: Years before the war began, Pentagon officials knew of the effectiveness of another type of vehicle that better shielded troops from bombs like those that have killed Kincaid and 1,500 other soldiers and Marines. But military officials repeatedly balked at appeals — from commanders on the battlefield and from the Pentagon's own staff — to provide the lifesaving Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, or MRAP, for patrols and combat missions, USA TODAY found. In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates late last month, two U.S. senators said the delays cost the lives of an estimated "621 to 742 Americans" who would have survived explosions had they been in MRAPs rather than Humvees. The letter, from Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Kit Bond, R-Mo., assumed the initial calls for MRAPs came in February 2005, when Marines in Iraq asked the Pentagon for almost 1,200 of the vehicles. USA TODAY found that the first appeals for the MRAP came much earlier. As early as December 2003, when the Marines requested their first 27 MRAPs for explosives-disposal teams, Pentagon analysts sent detailed information about the superiority of the vehicles to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, e-mails obtained by USA TODAY show. Later pleas came from Iraq, where commanders saw that the approach the Joint Chiefs embraced — adding armor to the sides of Humvees, the standard vehicles in the war zone — did little to protect against blasts beneath the vehicles.

Distractions, Disinformation, Misinformation, Propaganda & Lies Our Mothers Wouldn't Allow Us Tell

President [Falsely] Links Qaeda of Iraq to Qaeda of 9/11

Mahdi Army, Not Al-Qaeda, is Enemy No. 1 in Western Baghdad

NEWS ANALYSIS; Same People, Same Threat: The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concludes US is losing ground in war on terrorism.... suggests the threat against the US is growing worse, fueled by Iraq war and spreading Islamic extremism; says report belies Pres Bush's assertions that Al Qaeda is growing weaker due to US efforts

Court Tells U.S. to Reveal Data on Detainees at Guantánamo: A federal appeals court ordered the government yesterday to turn over virtually all its information on Guantánamo detainees who are challenging their detention, rejecting an effort by the Justice Department to limit disclosures and setting the stage for new legal battles over the government’s reasons for holding the men indefinitely.

Security Lies, Distractions, Abuses & Fear-Mongering

Gonzales Knew About Violations, Officials Say: Two senior Justice Department officials said yesterday that they kept Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales apprised of FBI violations of civil liberties and privacy safeguards in recent years. The two officials spoke in a telephone call arranged by press officials at the Justice Department after The Washington Post disclosed yesterday that the FBI sent reports to Gonzales of legal and procedural violations shortly before he told senators in April 2005: "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse" after 2001.

Long-Delayed Security: As new warnings stoke the public’s fear of terrorist attacks, Congress is finally moving on some of the most important and neglected recommendations of the independent 9/11 commission.

The Politics of Fear: The National Intelligence Estimate is powerful rebuke to Pres Bush's approach to war on terrorism; says it vindicates those who say that Iraq war has been distraction from real fight and charges Congress to work toward exit strategy from Iraq

Limited Capacity Is Seen in Flu Defenses: More than a year after President Bush unveiled a plan for coping with a pandemic flu outbreak, the federal government still has limited capacity to detect a disease outbreak and track its progress across the country. The government has also decided that it will not close the borders if a pandemic flu outbreak occurs somewhere in the world.

F.D.A. Inspections Lax, Congress Is Told: According to testimony Tuesday before a House subcommittee, they have been able to bring tainted products into this country because the F.D.A. has neither enough resources nor inspectors to stop them. And each year it has become easier: since 2003, the number of inspectors has decreased while imports of food alone have almost doubled.

FEMA Runs for Cover: More than 66,000 of the victims still live in FEMA’s trailers, unable to return home. In a sickening twist to their woeful tale of neglect, it appears that their trailers have been poisoning them. FEMA, which knew of the problem for more than a year, ignored warnings from its own staff and avoided addressing it because it was worried about being sued.

Guard Problems Spur New Effort In Protection of Federal Buildings: Homeland Security officials unveiled new steps yesterday to ensure that federal buildings are not left unprotected, after two cases in which contract security guards stayed away from their jobs because they had not been paid. The new measures come after weeks of congressional scrutiny of the Federal Protective Service, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security that provides the private security guards at most federal buildings. Legislators have contended that the service's poor record in paying and overseeing contractors could leave government buildings vulnerable to crime or terrorism.

State-Run Sites Not Effective vs. Terror: Report Blasts Costly Intelligence Centers -- More than 40 state-run operations set up after 9/11 to help uncover terrorist plots are proving to be a costly but largely ineffective weapon against terrorism, according to congressional investigators. Homeland Security has given states $380 million to set up the high-tech intelligence centers to help law enforcement officials do what they were not able to do before Sept. 11, 2001: recognize suspicious activity, patterns and people and use the information to prevent terrorist attacks. However, the centers "have increasingly gravitated toward an all-crimes and even broader all-hazards approach," focusing on traditional criminals and local emergencies, according to a report this month by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

A Nuclear Ruse Uncovers Holes In U.S. Security: Government Accountability Office investigators set up bogus company and obtained license from Nuclear Regulatory Commission that would have allowed them to buy radioactive materials needed for 'dirty' bomb; GAO report says security measures to prevent terrorists from obtaining radioactive materials are insufficient; bomb would not have caused widespread damage but it still could have had serious consequences in any city where it was detonated; regulatory commission says it has taken steps to improve safeguards and that danger associated with amount of radioactive material auditors were trying to buy should not be overstated; auditors' findings are latest in series of reports about weaknesses at Nuclear Regulatory Commission that investigators argue make nation more vulnerable to dirty bomb attack.

Making A Big Noise In The West While Attacking In The East

The Iraq War Debate: The Great Denier: With the White House refusing to lead, lawmakers in both parties have begun to talk about the best way to end the war. But instead of seizing the opening, Mr. Bush and his team continue to spout disinformation and vacuous slogans about victory and, of course, more character assassination.

Misusing Public Position, Public Funds & Public Office For Partisan Politics

White House Had Drug Officials Appear With GOP Candidates: White House officials arranged for top officials at the Office of National Drug Control Policy to help as many as 18 vulnerable Republican congressmen by making appearances and sometimes announcing new federal grants in the lawmakers' districts in the months leading up to the November 2006 elections, a Democratic lawmaker said yesterday.

White House Would Have Its Political Wing, Officially or Not: Have Congressional overseers have their hands full investigating the deeds and, they allege, misdeeds of the White House Office of Political Affairs. Did the office's involvement in the firing of the nine U.S. attorneys cross the line? What about its staff's use of Republican National Committee e-mail accounts? Did its minions improperly seek to enlist executive agencies to help GOP candidates? Intriguing questions, all. But so is this one: Why is there a taxpayer-funded political office in the White House to begin with?

Over Spending, No-Bid Contracts, Profiteering & Wasting Billions Over There While Ignoring Us Over Here

The Iraq War Debate: A Reality Check on Military Spending: The measure, larded with the usual billions in weapons more suited for another era, seemed headed for routine approval when it became snarled in the debate over Iraq and was pulled from the floor until after Labor Day. That gives the Senate and the public an unexpected chance to reflect on the frightening disconnect between the exotic and unlikely threats the Pentagon spends so much of its investment money preparing for and the 21st century wars America has actually been fighting.

Congressional Agency Predicts War Costs Will Climb: The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade, no matter how quickly U.S. troops are reduced in those countries over the next few years, according to a report released this week by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The Bush administration and Congress have allocated $577 billion to the conflicts through the end of the current fiscal year, but that amount is only a small down payment, the report suggested in examining the impact of various deployment scenarios. If today's troop level -- roughly 180,000 -- is cut by 85 percent by 2010 and remains at that level through 2017, the total cost of the two conflicts would be an additional $472 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office figures. If U.S. troop deployments were cut more gradually -- to 75,000 soldiers, or by about 60 percent, by 2013 -- the additional costs would be nearly $600 billion. Keeping troops at that level for five years beyond that would cost $300 billion more, the report said.

Back Room Deals, Tax Breaks For The Rich, Special Treatment For Liars & Cheats

Tax Break Used by Drug Makers Failed to Add Jobs: Drug makers were the biggest beneficiaries of the amnesty program, repatriating about $100 billion in foreign profits and paying only minimal taxes. But the companies did not create many jobs in return. Instead, since 2005 the American drug industry has laid off tens of thousands of workers in this country. And now drug companies are once again using complex strategies, many of them demonstrably legal, to shelter billions of dollars in profits in international tax havens, according to their financial statements and independent tax experts.

On Eve of Vote, Farm Bill Draws Threat of a Veto: Farm-state Republicans had been lining up with Democrats to defend the bipartisan bill but changed course when notified that a proposed increase in nutrition programs would be funded partly by tightening the rules on U.S.-based foreign companies that avoid U.S. taxes by using offshore havens.

Taxes in the Global Economy: As Americans grapple with the impact of trade and globalization, the government should be trying to ensure that America’s multinational corporations — and by extension, their shareholders — pay a fair share in taxes on the profits from globalization. Unfortunately, policy makers have moved in the opposite direction, dishing out excessive corporate tax breaks that have done little for workers and have served mainly to concentrate wealth among the few.

Casinos Booming In Katrina's Wake As Cash Pours In: Casinos in Biloxi, Miss, and New Orleans are doing record business in spite of massive damage inflicted by Hurricane Katrina; Biloxi has 40 percent fewer hotel rooms and only two-thirds as many slot machines as it did before Katrina, but business in gambling halls has reached all-time highs in recent months; Harrah's New Orleans is on pace for its best year ever; analysts say casinos in region are generating more revenue--from significantly fewer players--largely because of extra money many area residents have in their pockets and fewer alternatives on where to spend it; another factor in Mississippi is new law that allows casinos to be within 800 feet of water rather than requiring them to be on floating barge or riverboats

Going Once, Going Twice . . . The FCC proposes rules for the spectrum auction. THE FEDERAL Communications Commission is readying an auction of prime real estate -- in the radio spectrum, that is. The 700 MHz band being auctioned off is ideal for broadband services, and the proceeding is likely to be the last big spectrum auction in the telecommunications industry for a long time. The auction could have major implications for businesses, consumers and even victims of crises nationwide. As a result, companies and consumer groups have been lobbying the FCC about conditions to be placed on the spectrum's use -- which will be decided in the next few weeks -- with all parties claiming to promote the public interest. The most heated debate is over whether the telecom industry is competitive enough and which auction conditions might increase competition. In the mobile services market, some Goliaths have been consolidating, but even so, new sales packages are developing.

Judge Rejects Charges for 13 On Tax Shelter: Federal Judge Lewis A Kaplan dismisses charges against 13 former employees of accounting firm KPMG; decision delivers blow to prosecutors who once heralded case as showpiece in government's crusade against questionable tax shelters; Kaplan rules that he has no choice because government had strong-armed KPMG into not paying legal fees of defendants and had violated their rights; while decision is setback for prosecutors, it does not end case; criminal charges remain against five others, including three former KPMG employees; Ronald J Nessim, co-chairman of White Collar Crime Committee of American Bar Assn, says case has broad implications for goverment; lauds Kaplan for standing up to prosecutors; US attorney's office has not decided whether it will appeal; while prosecutors have had successes in battle against corporate fraud, ruling is latest in which they have seen prominent case unravel because it hinged, in part, on aggressive legal tactics.

Vetoing Children’s Health: President Bush is threatening to veto any substantial increase in spending for a highly successful children’s health program on the bizarre theory that expanding it would be the “beginning salvo” in establishing a government-run health care system. His shortsighted ideological opposition would leave millions of children without health insurance at a time when medical costs are soaring.

Tax Loopholes Sweeten a Deal For Blackstone: Blackstone Group devises way for its partners to effectively avoid paying taxes on $3.7 billion of the $4.75 billion it raised last month from selling shares to public; plan, laid out in fine print of Blackstone's financial documents, is similar to one used by other private equity firms and hedge funds that have gone public; Congress is debating how much managers at private equity firms like Blackstone and hedge funds should pay in taxes on their compensation; at issue is whether most of compensation that fund managers earn should be taxed at 35 percent rate that applies to other highly paid Americans, or at 15 percent rate for capital gains; Blackstone's tax maneuver hinges on its use of good will, accounting term for value of intangible assets that are built up by company over time; Blackstone partners paid 15 percent capital gains rate on shares they sold, then arranged to get deductions for $3.7 billion worth of good will at 35 percent rate.

Federal Appeals Court Orders Dismissal of Domestic Spying Suit

Health Care Fiascoes, Selling Our Heroes Short, & Lying About Concern For Our Troops, The Poor & Our Children

Overhaul Urged in Care for Soldiers: Dole-Shalala Commission Wants Bush to Act Quickly -- The panel issued six broad recommendations intended to transform a troubled system for military health care and veterans' assistance that has left some injured soldiers languishing for years and resulted in inequitable and inconsistent disability benefits.

How Specialist Town Lost His Benefits: Jon Town has spent the last few years fighting two battles, one against his body, the other against the US Army. Both began in October 2004 in Ramadi, Iraq. He was standing in the doorway of his battalion's headquarters when a 107-millimeter rocket struck two feet above his head. The impact punched a piano-sized hole in the concrete facade, sparked a huge fireball and tossed the 25-year-old Army specialist to the floor, where he lay blacked out among the rubble.

On Base, a Plea to Give Each Death Its Due: Twenty soldiers deployed to Iraq from this Army base were killed in May, a monthly high. That same month, the base announced a change in how it would honor its dead: instead of units holding services after each death, they would be held collectively once a month.

Drug Safety Critic Hurls Darts From the Inside: A former 1960s campus activist is now shaking up the nation’s pharmaceutical industry.

Filling Gaps in Iraq, Then Finding a Void at Home: This is the face of battle in a new war and a new century — a 46-year-old Pakistani-American woman, part of a rented army of 130,000 civilians supporting 160,000 United States soldiers and marines. Taking the place of enlisted troops in every American army before this one, these contract employees cook meals, wash clothes, deliver fuel and guard bases. And they die and suffer alongside their brothers and sisters in uniform. About 1,000 contractors have been killed in Iraq since the war began; nearly 13,000 have been injured.

The Much Needed Revamping Of Military & Veteran Health Care

2007-07-26T02:40:00.000-07:00

Cures for Walter Reed: Another Laudable Report on How to Fix Military Medicine

Before looking at the recommendations of the panel, it must be stated that the first major reform in both military and veteran health care is making the funding of both a first priority.

From the late 1970s through the 1990s there was a tremendous effort to downsize the military medical infrastructure. Naval Regional Medical Centers (MRMCs) were deliberately downsized to Naval Hospital (NH) status. When there was a staffing shortage--and there was almost always a staffing shortage--the method of resolving the shortage was to change the numbers and parameters of staffing. In February of 1980 NRMC Great Lakes (Great Lakes, Illinois) was listed at 73% staffing capacity. In March of that same year it was listed at 100%, but the number of staff onboard had not changed at all. With a stroke of a BUPERS (Naval Bureau of Personnel) and subsequent stroke of a BUMED (Naval Bureau of Medicine), NRMC GLakes went from 73% to 100%. The new commanding officer was less than pleased at the process, as were those nurses, doctors and corpsman that now had to pull double the duty hours just to keep pace.

Major Army hospitals and medical centers were closed or downsized as well. Coast Guard bases were somewhat insulated because only a few duty stations actually had their own hospitals or even a dispensary. Air Force hospitals suffered a similar fate, as did the MEDVAC system operated by the Air Force as a service for all three branches (including the Marine Corps as part of the Navy).

The VA health care system has NEVER been fully funded. Instead, it has been treated as an after-thought, receiving less and less funding (percentage wise) year after year. The VA has never been given a fully funded vision from Congress and has relied on orders from the executive branch to determine how much original funding, and supplemental funding, it has received. As a result, the VA has a system of priorities for providing vets care, which translates into many lower categories of vets (Categories 4-8) receiving care only when there were funds available to do so. That is currently the case as we speak. Veterans in Categories 6-8 are not currently being treated at the VA because the entire VA funding is going toward treating those vets with combat-related, service-related or chromic conditions.

The end result of denying the health care promise to veterans is that one-third to one-half of homeless individuals (depending upon whose study is cited) are veterans from Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Kosovo, Gulf War I and the period between these conflicts. Even though veterans that served faithfully with a promise of lifelong health care in return for their willingness to serve faithfully in an environment where the risk of death occurs everyday (e.g. the risk of death on an aircraft carrier is higher than steelworkers, policemen, firefighters and healthcare workers combined), they are being turned away. Additionally, the funding issue requires that any veteran seeking care from the VA system must supplement the VA budget through co-pays or insurance (if they have it).

Fundamentally there is an inherent injustice in the VA system when it requires a vet to contribute to the funds for care: these folks were promised health care services as part of their commitment when they enlisted or were commissioned.

Then, too, as we have seen from the various reports--and far too many vets (or their families) can attest to, firsthand experience--the quality of health care at the VA is often sub-standard. The system relies too heavily upon hiring foreign-born, foreign-trained physicians and nurses (often ignoring the veteran corpsmen and medics that received excellent training while in service and cannot find a path to civilian credentials upon discharge) for staffing. Then, too, the VA system relies too heavily upon the rotation of interns and residents from the various medical schools associated with the VA hospitals.

When the affiliation with major medical schools was first arranged (Chicago University Medical School was one of the first), the program was hailed as a godsend because it supplemented the VA attending staff and provided a staffing boost. But in the subsequent years, these student doctors have become the entirety of the primary care system, answerable to a Chief Resident more often than a Chief of Service. Most of the Chief of Service positions are filled with doctors that had difficulty getting their US medical credentials because their training was through medical schools and hospitals in places like India, Pakistan, Jordan, Iran or other places.

A good for instance is my own treatment at the VA for kidney stones. The Chief of Service was a Muslim Indian named Dr. Khan. Dr. Khan was an impressive man that met with me twice before my uroscopic procedure. I could barely understand half of what he said because his accent was difficult to understand. Having medical training from the military (Navy Hospital Corp AND Army Medic), I was better informed and more knowledgeable than most patients. But there was a major problem concerning the accuracy of medical progress notes in my case. There are several narrative reports in my medical files that indicate that there were anywhere from three to ten stones in my right kidney, ranging in size from 2-15cm in diameter. The actual CT Scan showed five stones in my right kidney. Yet, a later narrative report indicated these stones were in my left kidney. The problem stemmed from the fact that I had four residents treating me and performing the workup before I got to the operating suite. There was no genuine supervision of these residents by attending staff. While the VA has a new and excellent electronic medical records system, the accuracy of the reports being entered is less than 100%, making the system a product of the feared GIGO (Garbage In-Garbage Out) syndrome dreaded by anyone involved in collecting data and information. The obvious lack of supervision and original involvement of an up-to-date cadre of attending physicians has been problematic and has hurt the quality of care provided by the VA.

One of the first steps in resolving the VA health care system is to revamp the criteria and compensation offerings for physicians, eliminating the need to hire foreign-trained physicians because American-trained doctors won't take these low-paying positions.

One of the first steps for the military hospitals is to increase the staffing of hospitals, clinics and dispensaries with a proper number of corpsmen (medics), nurses and American-trained physicians, AND elevate the military medical infrastructure back to an acceptable standard, keeping it there even when there isn't an active ongoing war.

IT HAS BEEN five months since an investigation by The Post exposed squalid conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and federal policymakers now have no shortage of good advice on how to fix the bloat, inefficiency and indifference of the military health-care system. The latest came yesterday from the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors, a panel headed by former senator Robert J. Dole and former health and human services secretary Donna E. Shalala, which examined the entire system of health care and benefits that should serve seriously injured soldiers. That follows at least five other major studies released since March.

Still, not nearly enough has been done to fix the system. Some of Walter Reed's facilities have been repaired, but fresh paint at the base's outpatient buildings will not repair the confusing bureaucratic mess that wounded soldiers must face when they get home. President Bush must push through major reforms soon.

Amen! But this is a typical response... throw a little paint on it and call it a done deal.

Headlining the presidential commission's report is a recommendation to assign each seriously injured service member a single "recovery coordinator" who will guide him or her through the process of receiving care and obtaining benefits. Other recommendations include a reform of the disability benefits system: Instead of the current overlapping procedures for assigning benefits, the Defense Department would be responsible only for deciding whether to discharge a service member, while the Department of Veterans Affairs would make all decisions regarding disability payments and services. These determinations would be based on a single, comprehensive physical examination and a regularly updated schedule for assessing the severity of service-related disabilities. The commission also echoed an earlier Institute of Medicine report by calling for compensation for lost quality of life, not just lost income.

The military HAD such a program called an "OMBUDSMAN" program. The Army and Air Force actually have commissioned Social Workers within the system, but the staffing levels for either ombudsmen or social workers has never been adequate for the tasks at hand. But given the nature of traumatic brain injury, a caseworker with between 1-5 cases should be a good start.

But what about those vets and active service members without TBIs? Shouldn't the vet with a limb amputation, or with major burns across the body, or with severe injuries about the torso be entitled to a case worker as well? Shouldn't the vet suffering from PTSD, "shell shock" or other psychiatric disturbances have a caseworker as well? Once again we can see an inherent bias by those that do not understand the systems, the dynamics, or the problems... treat the problem that is getting the most attention and ignore the rest.

Some critical questions remain unanswered: How can the VA reliably quantify loss of "quality of life," for example? Even so, Mr. Bush should be seeking to urgently enact significant reforms such as those in the commission's report, so that no more veterans have to face the broken system in place now. After jogging with two wounded soldiers yesterday afternoon, the president called on Congress to act on the report and said that he had instructed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Veterans Affairs Secretary R. James Nicholson "to look at every one of these recommendations, to take them seriously and to implement them." We hope that happens, and quickly.

As a vet, I still hold Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld responsible for the faltering of the military and VA health care systems. Like the issues with field armor for vehicles and personnel, these leaders of our military failed to properly prepare for war and sent our troops into harm's way without assuring that the promise of health care was in place.

Shame on them!

Affirmation Regarding The Confusion Over Sexual Predators

2007-07-25T06:32:00.001-07:00

Yesterday I wrote a post on the confusion, dissonance and exploitation that is inherent in the way we are addressing sexual predators. While yesterday's post mostly dealt with the way NBC, Dateline and the "To Catch A Predator" series of reports are exploiting the public, doing a disservice to genuine victims of sexual exploitation of all kinds, violating journalistic ethics, and making a profit by exposing these matters in an inappropriate way, it also dealt with the inconsistencies in our history, culture and legal systems in terms of defining sexual abuse, sexual predators and the means by which we intervene in these matters.

Today we find a story that outlines the efforts of a middle school and the local police to prosecute two 13-year-old boys as sexual predators for slapping the buttocks of girls in school. While we can all agree that slapping the buttocks of young pre-teen and teen girls that are entering puberty is inappropriate and constitutes harassment, one has to wonder if the schools, the police, the parents and the prosecutors in these cases have had too much to drink.

Yes, the behavior is wrong... but does it reach the level of a sex crime? Does this behavior by kids so young warrant locking the boys in a juvenile detention center for five days and proffering felony charges? Even though these felony charges have been dropped, was there grounds for smearing a label of sexual predator and attaching the stigma of that label onto children that have not the cognitive capacity (c.f. Scientific American reports Is the Teen Brain Too Rational? and The Teen Brain, Hard at Work) to determine if their behavior is risky to themselves or others, or even appropriate by adult definitions and understanding. What we do not understand about pre-adolescent and adolescent development and behavior could fill several tomes.

This report affirms my posted notions that we really do not know what the hell we are doing when it comes to our sexuality, our children's needs, defining sexual predatory behaviors, adolescence or social norms.

Boys Face Trial Over Slapping Charges

Two middle-school students in Oregon are facing possible time in a juvenile jail and could have to register as sex offenders for smacking girls on the rear end at school.

Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, were arrested in February after they were caught in the halls of Patton Middle School, in McMinnville, Ore., slapping girls on the rear end. Mashburn told ABC News in a phone interview that this was a common way of saying hello practiced by lots of kids at the school, akin to a secret handshake.

The boys spent five days in a juvenile detention facility and were charged with several counts of felony sex abuse for what they and their parents said was merely inappropriate but not criminal behavior.

Common or not, we can all agree that this is an inappropriate way of greeting or communicating in the social sense among young teens. But given its social acceptance among this group of teens, one would think that some re-direction, correction and education on the issues would have been more appropriate than hauling these kids off to a juvenile detention center and keeping them for five days... never mind charging them with sex crimes at the felony level.

The local district attorney has since backed off -- the felony charges have been dropped and the district attorney said probation would be an appropriate punishment. The Mashburns' lawyer said prosecutors offered Cory a plea bargain that would not require him to register as a sex offender, which the family plans to reject.

But the boys, if convicted at an Aug. 20 trial, still face the possibility of some jail time or registering for life as sex offenders.

The boys' families and lawyers said even sentencing them to probation would turn admittedly inappropriate but not uncommon juvenile rowdiness into a crime. If they are convicted of any of the misdemeanor charges against them, they would have to register as sex offenders.

It's devastating," said Mark Lawrence, Cory Mashburn's lawyer. "To be a registered sex offender is to be designated as the most loathed in our society. These are young boys with bright futures, and the brightness of those futures would be over."

I am not sure that slapping someone on the buttocks while they are fully clothed and without an obvious sexual context could ever rise to the level of a sex crime. But if the prosecution continues on this track, these kids will be marked for life as sexual predators.

This is similar to the numerous cases where people have been arrested and prosecuted as sexual predators for "indecent exposure" instead of public urination. As I was growing up there was a tradition that if your kids had to pee while on a long road trip, Good Old Dad would pull over to the breakdown lane, put on his flashers and instruct you to run to the edge of the tree line to do your business. Sometimes Good Old Dad--and on a rare occasion even Good Old Mom--would make the same trip to the trees for the same reason. Today this could be a sex crime... Go figure!

Perhaps it's time to consider changing the charge to simple assault, removing the sex offender stigma from the case altogether? Or perhaps it is time to consider a diversion approach that would drop the charges if these boys were to participate in some form of "sexual harassment" seminar, and then do a couple of presentations at their school on what they learned?

Cory Mashburn said he and Ryan Cornelison slapped each others' and other kids' bottoms every Friday. "Lots of kids at school do that," he said.

I can't speak for Mashburn and Cornelison, but when I was their age I learned to congratulate my team mates in football and basketball by slapping them on their backside. Even our coaches would do this type of thing when they sent us in to substitute or bring a new play call to the quarterback or team captain. I think we have enough of an established norm within the context of this middle school to question the judgment of the school officials, the police and the prosecutors.

Cory and Ryan were brought to the principal's office Feb. 22, where they were questioned by school officials and a police officer. They were arrested that day and taken in handcuffs to a juvenile detention facility.

Court papers said the boys touched the buttocks of several girls, some of whom said this made them uncomfortable. The papers also said Cory touched a girl's breasts. But police reports filed with the court said other students, both boys and girls, slapped each other on the bottom.

"It's like a handshake we do," one girl said, according to the police report.

The boys were initially charged with five counts of felony sexual abuse. At a court hearing, two of the girls recanted, saying they never felt threatened or inappropriately touched by the boys. The judge released the boys but barred them from returning to school and required that they be under constant adult supervision.

District Attorney Bradley Berry has since dismissed the felony counts. The boys face 10 misdemeanor charges of harassment and sexual abuse. They face a maximum of up to one year in a juvenile jail on each count, though Berry said there was no way the boys would ever serve that much time.

"An appropriate sentence would be probation," he said. "These are minor misdemeanor charges that reflect repeated contact against multiple victims. We never intended for them to get a long time in detention."

"We're not seeking major penalties," he said. "We're seeking change in conduct."

The statement of the district attorney doesn't seem to ring true. If he were genuinely interested in changing conduct and behavior, especially when there is a willing and cooperative set of parents that want their children to understand the inappropriateness of these actions, then there would be some effort on his part to seek out some alternatives to prosecution under sexual offender charges. But this seems to be another case of sensationalizing a case to promote the image of the office or the person of the district attorney. And if the DA did not intend for a long time in detention, why weren't these kids released to their parents "ROR" as most first-time juvenile offenders are released? Why were they kept in detention for five days? I love it when we are lied to in such obvious ways, don't you?

The arrests, critics said, reflect a trend toward criminalizing adolescent sexual behavior. Between 1998 and 2002, juvenile arrests for sex offenses other than rape or prostitution rose 9 percent -- the only kind of juvenile arrests that rose during that time, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

"More and more, they are criminalizing normal adolescent or preadolescent behavior," said Chuck Aron, co-chairman of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers juvenile justice committee.

This is in keeping with my observations about the NBC, Dateline, "Predator" series and Perverted Justice approach. We are caught in a pattern of sensationalizing and exaggerating the events to garner not only attention to the genuine problems of sexual abuse and assault, but for profit or political gain. And, just as I wrote in yesterday's post, we cannot seem to get it straight when dealing with adolescent sexuality... or as we see in this case, what might not be sexuality at all, but a group of kids acting in a way that they do not perceive as inappropriate, but seems to stimulate the dirty little minds of school administrators and the local law enforcement folks.

Even probation, the Mashburns and their attorney said, would be too severe a punishment.

Julie McFarlane, a supervising attorney at the Juvenile Rights Project in Portland, Ore., said, "Probation for a sex offense is very difficult thing, and there's a pretty high failure rate." Failing to meet the terms of probation could mean the boys would be sent to jail.

Depending on the terms of probation, it's likely that the boys would not be allowed to have sexual contact with anyone or any contact with younger children, McFarlane said. For Cory Mashburn, that would mean he couldn't be left alone with his younger siblings.

In our efforts to genuinely identify and arrest those that prey on our children, we have cast a net so large and so fine that we are now criminalizing natural human behaviors, including those behaviors that need to be curtailed and set straight. Certainly we can agree that the method of "handshaking" chosen by these boys and others in this middle school is inappropriate, but approaching it in the manner chosen by these authorities is blown way out of proportion. But this is in keeping with an observation I made in yesterday's post when I noted that the way people react to these issues is often more damaging than the original incidents.

Berry, the district attorney, said the victims -- the girls who were touched -- were being overlooked. "What's been lost in this whole thing are the victims, who have been pressured enormously by these boys' friends," he said.

I disagree. I do not think these girls are being neglected in this process... at least not by anyone with a lick of sense. But perhaps the DA should ask if his own actions are ignoring the needs of these girls? There is a stigma of being a sexual victim as well as a stigma attached to being a "squealer" in the school setting. Once again we have to ask if the DA really understands the issues and whether there is an alternative approach that would validate the girls, acknowledge the inappropriateness of the boys' actions, send a message to all the children in school, alert the school authorities to an issue that they have been ignoring, and provide for the proverbial "win-win" outcome?

NBC Dateline "Predator" Suffers Its Own Perverted Justice

2007-07-24T06:08:00.000-07:00

I have written on more than one occasion that the NBC Dateline "To Catch A Predator" series is all about making money through an exploitation of the worst part of human nature. Like the group of people that gather at the base of a tall building to watch a depressed and disturbed individual contemplate suicide via jumping to his or her death, Dateline viewers are offered an "inside look" into the perversion that is pedophilia.

But here in America we have some issues to resolve.

Should a television network be allowed to become a de facto arm of the law enforcement system? When I teach journalism I often discuss the important issue of ethics. Journalism has a history of largely ignoring ethics up until the post-World War II era. We are now seeing a backsliding dynamic when it comes to ethics in journalism because of the appeal to sensationalism, gossip, celebrity watching (a creation of Hollywood's own public relations, advertising and marketing engines), and a penchant for voyeurism in a vicarious manner.

But we already have too many cameras invading our personal space and personal lives. One of the principles of journalistic ethics is to determine whether a story is in the public view or a private matter, and if it is private, then whether or not there is a right of the general public to know. Most assuredly those conspiring to commit a crime are thrusting themselves into the public view. Most assuredly those seeking to commit sexual acts with children are subject to the public right to know. But should it be broadcast in the manner in which NBC, Dateline, and the producers of the "Predator" series have chosen? And if the answer to this question is "yes," then should it be an ongoing series that exploits the voyeuristic and pornographic tendencies of the general public?

I know how I see the issue. When Dateline presented this issue in its original "Predator" segment, I felt that it had crossed a line of taste, but that a one-time airing of the issues, dynamics and problem involved in predatory pedophilia was worth the crossing the line of decorum. But Dateline has turned this type of programming into a moneymaker. Given that NBC has significant issues trying to maintain a competitive role among the major networks, it has decided to grab the attention of viewers by appealing to these base instincts of the general public, demonstrate that such segments garner huge numbers of viewers, and sell all of the available commercial spots at a premium.

While I agree the predatory nature of pedophilia needs to be outlined in a public manner, I do not think we really understand the issues. In the first place, we define pedophilia a lot differently in our culture. Now I am not just saying that we define pedophilia a lot differently than other cultures, but that we have historically re-defined it in our own country. Indeed, during the Colonial and Expansion Eras of our nation, young teen-aged girls were practically sold off into marriage. Marriages occurred between older men--sometimes men that were in their thirties or forties--and a young girl as young as thirteen. These marriages were not only sanctioned by the families, but also by the majority of church leaders and the legal authorities.

As our nation grew and expanded, and as we entered into the Industrial Revolution, young girls were exploited either by what amounted to practical slave labor for those with industrial production capacity, the rich that required domestic servants, or by those that were seeking young wives. In fact, becoming a teen-age wife might have actually been a better alternative that working in the mills and factories of the time. Marriage at an early age might even be better than the fate of working as a maid, cook or other servant in the households of the wealthy since many of these servants were often sexually exploited in the process.

In all but the most urban centers of our nation, teen-aged girls were subject to marriage well into the 1960s. We still have a patchwork quilt of laws from state-to-state regarding the age of sexual consent. The age of consent for sexual acts has also been a political football at times, subject to the whims of a fickle legislature. During the 1960s and 1970s many courts were recognizing that sex between two teen-agers close in age was not necessarily "statutory rape," but an expression of puberty, adolescence, and the process of exploring sexuality. While such was not considered the ideal manner to express puberty, adolescence or sexuality, the courts were recognizing that it was the role of parents to educate their teens regarding moral and sexuality issues, and criminalizing sex was not necessarily a positive step. Since the Reagan Era, this approach has been retracted by the vast majority of courts and most expressions of sexual intimacy by teen-agers are considered criminal acts in one manner or another.

Still, there is such a thing as statutory rape. The concept is that when a person lacks the capacity to consent, then the sexual act is abusive, invasive and illegal. Then, too, there is such a thing as rape and incest, both being an exploitation and invasion of the person by use of coercive force, threat or undue influence. It is here that the legal concept of "mens rea" (intent or reason for an act) comes into play.

Most assuredly those people caught by Dateline's "Predator" series possess an evil intent that qualifies as a criminal act. But is it the role of Dateline to exploit these events into a moneymaking process? Does Dateline take the necessary steps to prevent casting aspersions on someone's character? Does Dateline ever cross the lines of decency, libel, slander or offer a disregard for humanity?

Perhaps the question is answered in the recent lawsuit filed against NBC, Dateline and the producers and presenters of the "To Catch A Predator" series? Does Dateline's alliance with the group known as "Perverted Justice" cross a line where journalists are no longer reporting the news, but are creating the news and participating in it in such a way as to disregard the ethics and principles of journalism? Do the folks at NBC and Perverted Justice disregard constitutional issues and violate the rights of those accused, or do they merely serve as a tool that allows law enforcement to circumvent the due process protected by constitutional principles?

Of course pedophilia is a horrendous social and criminal act. Children should not be exploited, invaded or assaulted in this manner. The sexual development of a child should be something that is guided by the child's family... or so we are led to believe. But there is another form of pedophilia that is considerably more perverse than what has been depicted on Dateline: incest... a sexual exploitation committed by those that are supposed to love and protect children. Of course, incest remains largely under-reported, outside of the attention of the media, secreted by most families because of the stigma, and treated as a crime without any regard for the dysfunction that underlies the act itself.

We are also led to believe that pedophilia, rape and incest is on the rise. This is the lie of sensationalism and the dynamics of secrecy. Incest and pedophilia have always been with us. Like all forms of child abuse and exploitation, we are just beginning to learn the depths of its depravity because we are paying attention to it. But, as a lot of victims of sexual abuse will tell us, the worst part of being sexually exploited is the way our families, communities and our legal system responds to such assaults and abuse. We collectively continue to ignore the issues and problems inherent in dealing with sexual matters, especially those we perceive as criminal, exploitive and morally repulsive.

Maybe the lawsuit against NBC, Dateline and Perverted Justice will garner some attention not only to the issues of exploitation by the predators labeled by the Dateline programming, but also the exploitation by NBC, Dateline, Perverted Justice and our collective lack of proper understanding of the problems and dynamics. But I am willing to bet that we will continue to ignore the real issues and tune in to the next episode of "Predator" aired by NBC and Dateline.

'Predator' Suicide Prompts $105M Lawsuit

The sister of a former U.S. state prosecutor who killed himself after he was targeted by a television show as a suspected pedophile is suing NBC Universal for $105 million.

Louis William Conradt, 56, shot himself in November 2006 after he was confronted at his Terrell, Texas, home by police, whom the lawsuit said were carrying television cameras for a "To Catch a Predator" segment of NBC's Dateline program.

"To Catch a Predator" involves Dateline and Internet watchdog Perverted Justice luring suspected pedophiles to a "sting house" by using online decoys. NBC has said Conradt had contacted a decoy posing as a 13-year-old boy.

But Conradt did not visit the "sting house" the show set up in Murphy, Texas, 35 miles from Terrell. The lawsuit said 24 men were lured to the Murphy home and arrested, but no charges were brought as a result of the operation.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan by Patricia Conradt on behalf of Conrad's estate, accuses NBC's Dateline of "steam-rolling" police to arrest Conradt, a retired district attorney for Kaufman County.

The lawsuit said police and members of the Dateline crew traveled to Conradt's house "with neither a search warrant nor an arrest warrant" that met legal standards.

"Both police officers and other members of the party were wearing cameras ... very large cameras, on the cutting edge of technology, that normally are worn only by television reporters," the lawsuit said.

"They were met by (Conradt). He told them 'I'm not gonna hurt anyone' and shot himself. Then a police officer said to a Dateline producer, 'That'll make good TV.' Death was an hour later," it said.

"The stigma of suicide irrevocably has spread its dark shadow over his good name and reputation," the lawsuit said.

NBC Universal, a unit of General Electric Co., said it had not yet received the lawsuit.

"But we plan to defend ourselves vigorously as we believe the claims in the suit to be completely without merit," it said in a statement.

This is the second lawsuit filed against NBC in the last three months over the "Dateline" predator series. In May, the show's former producer, Marsha Bartel, sued the network in Illinois federal court, alleging she was fired after she raised ethical concerns about the show's methods.

Saving Baby: A Miracle In Lee County

2007-07-23T00:39:00.000-07:00

The following is the story of "Baby," a German Shepherd puppy that was all but abandoned in the small town (Moro) in Lee County, Arkansas. The story reveals the routine neglect of animals, many of whom are "pets" but are ignored. This is the second dog that has been rescued by the efforts of my wife and I, or her family. The first was "Rookie," a large female black lab that was all but abandoned by a minister that took a job outside of Lee County and decided to lock the dog in a hot external building that had no air ventilation (a real problem given the heat down here), often without allowing her out to urinate and defecate. Later, Rookie was allowed to run free throughout the town without proper care. The result was that Rookie was infected with heartworms and needed to undergo a horrible treatment involving arsenic compounds, extreme toxicity, and potential death. Rookie now lives with my wife's relatives and lives the life of Riley, going to work with one of my wife's relatives everyday, and having her own chair in the main office of the business.

Since rescuing Baby, my wife and I have made a commitment to develop funds and plans for a shelter in Lee County, with hopes that we can network and assist the development of Humane Society resources for Lee, Monroe, Phillips Counties (none of which have genuine resources for stray, abused or neglected animal care), as well as develop additional resources for St. Francis County.

But the attitudes of the folks down here do not support decent care for animals. Many folks allow their dogs to run free, often laying or wondering on the highways and byways, risking a head-on collision with a car, farm equipment or an 18-wheeler. Far too many are not treated with heart worm prophylaxis, or even fleas and tick prophylaxis. The shelter in Forrest City is brand new and is already overwhelmed with animals, and many are euthanized because of the severity of neglect or abuse.

Late in the afternoon I sat down at my computer to check my email. A message popped up on the screen and then disappeared into the anti-spam folder. What was that I saw? Something about a dog in trouble? I quickly retrieved the message.

The subject read "German Shepherd in Trouble in Moro." I opened the message and began to read what would become the first chapter in the story of a dog who became known as "Baby" and the man who was trying to save her. The last words of the message were "Please help me find her the help she needs."

With this awful scenes of other cases of neglect and abuse still fresh in my mind I began to read the words of the message from a stranger in Moro:

We just moved to Moro, AR. There is a pack of dogs, mostly labs, running loose around our neighborhood. There is also a female German Shepherd that sometimes runs with them. She is a sweet youngster (I estimate 9 months to a year old) that has been hanging around our house and the house of our relatives. I was finally able to get her to come to me after she was caught in a torrential downpour yesterday. She is flea and tick infested, and her skin is filled with scabs from the bites. She doesn't appear to have any major hair loss at this time. However, I am almost certain, given the number of mosquitoes in this area and the fact that she appears so neglected, that she would test positive for heart worm. This morning I offered her some dog food and she gulped it down like she hadn't eaten in a while. She is not emaciated, but she was very hungry and very thirsty.

She is not very socialized with humans, being very skittish when approached. She is also skittish around new dogs, but seems to get along with the others in the local pack she runs with. But she is very sweet and friendly. I do not know if she has been spayed, or if she has been vaccinated in any way... so I am careful to keep my Dachshund away from her (even though he is fully vaccinated). But I am very concerned about her well-being.

I have left a message on your answering machine, but I do not know if your shelter is the appropriate facility serving Moro or Lee County. If I could afford it, I would round her up and take her to a vet, but that is not a possibility at this time. The neighbors believe she belongs to someone here in Moro. But even if she does belong to someone, she is being seriously neglected. I cannot say whether this is deliberate or due to the inability of the owner to care for her fully.

Please help me find her the help she needs.

My heart went out to this newcomer and the dog he was writing about, but I could only answer with the truth. I cared very much and wanted to help but he was out of our county and officially, our organization could do nothing. To which he answered:

I am sorry you can't help either. I called seven different organizations today, including the Marianna PD, the Lee County Sheriff's Department, and a couple Humane Society folks. Each time I was referred to either some other number/organization, or to one I had already called. Lee County Sheriff's Dept referred me back to you folks.

As a new resident of Arkansas I am getting very frustrated with the lack of service provided by the various government entities I have encountered...

But I thank you for the response and the concern. I am going to contact a German Shepherd rescue organization and see if I can somehow get the pup in their hands. Unfortunately, this may open me up to expenditures I can barely afford, and possibly legal entanglements if the owner somehow surfaces in the process. But there is a moral and ethical issue at hand. No animal should be neglected in this manner. In the interim I am going to coax her into a tub, give her a flea bath and remove the ticks, and treat the scabs and any wounds that might be present (I am a former US Navy Corpsman and Army Medic)... even if I have to suture wounds myself. Hopefully I will find a sympathetic vet who will help.

If the pup were a Dachshund I would have all kinds of resources through DARE, Coast-to-Coast and other Dachsie rescue organizations (I got my bubala from C2C).

He was being led in a circle and that circle was coming back to me. I began forwarding his emails to other members of the FCAHS and answers started coming. If he could get a picture and if he could feed and care for the dog we could help in some ways, maybe we could help.

A little miracle began to happen. A donor came forward with an offer to pay up to $100 in vet bills for the dog.
I passed this news to my new found friend in Moro along with information about vets in the area.

However, the next message from Moro was discouraging:

I really appreciate your efforts! Unfortunately, the pup is nowhere to be found since the day I started this process. I received a call from someone you were networking with. Rest assured, if the sweet girl comes back into my sight, she will be washed, de-ticked and given some tender care...

In my efforts to find help for this German Shepherd pup I talked to 8 organizations. I kept getting passed from one office/person to another. The Marianna Police referred me to the Sheriff. I had called them before calling the MPD and they were the ones that referred me to you. One of the officials referred me to the Humane Society in West Memphis. My first thought was that the shelter in West Memphis wouldn't want anything to do with this issue... and then I thought that just maybe there is a regional approach. As it turned out, my first thought was correct...

Again, many thanks for all of you efforts and networking. As soon as I track down the pup, I will follow through with the necessary steps.

Another message arrived, this time with good news:

The pup returned yesterday. Unfortunately, we were on the way to the 4th of July gathering and could not deal with her then. But she decided to stick around, so we were able to feed and water her with some healthy stuff.

This morning I bathed her three times, taking no less than 30 ticks off her body. I am not sure we got them all. I cleaned her ears and placed tick-mite drops in her ears. We put a flea and tick collar on her (we could not afford the stuff that I know works). She is now tied out on a thirty-foot lead near a doghouse with plenty of water.

She is the sweetest thing. Although she was not happy about any of the baths, she loved being brushed and wiped down. Even though removing the ticks caused her pain, she never once snapped or even tried to mouth our hands. She recovered quickly from the pain response and fast became friends again. She is still skittish around strangers and other dogs with whom she is unfamiliar, but she comes to us and looks for attention when we go out. I was even able to move her bowl of food without a growl or warning...

She is okay for now. I am going to try to contact the vet you recommended ASAP.

Then the news got better:

I took 'Baby' to the vet today. She was negative for heartworms, but I have to find a way to get her started on the prophylaxis treatment ASAP. The technicians advised me that I have a window of 1-3 weeks and that she will need a follow-up check for heartworm in 6 months just to be sure. She is positive for two types of intestinal worms--as I figured she would be given the neglect of assuring her clean chow. He gave me meds for the deworming process. She also has a new tick collar, which he recommended over a dip because it lasts three months... and costs a little less than the dip. But since she was ticky all over, I had to get the collar out of my own pocket to protect her and my own dog. She also has bilateral ear infections, so he gave me drops that have to go in twice a day, as well as an oral antibiotic that has to be given twice a day.

The total for today's visit was $92.50, including her vaccinations for rabies and the three basic concerns (distemper, parvo and rabies). The tick collar cost me $13.00, which was almost all I had on me at the time. She was registered as Moro Shepherd...
Thanks very very much.

And so the "German Shepherd in Trouble in Moro" became "Baby". She had a name! I smiled at that because I believed that she would also soon have a home. The next message contained the pictures and something I will not forget.

Again, thank you from the bottom of my soul for your help. It is a "mitzvah" (Yiddish for "honorable deed") that will not go unmentioned in heaven. Even though I am not Jewish, sometimes the Yiddish words sum things up better than English. A person that commits a "mitzvah" is usually referred to as a "mensch" (a great soul or person).... I think you may just qualify. Attached are two pictures taken while "Baby" was being a bit rambunctious. I attached them as files and as embedded pictures.

“Baby” became real in the pictures. I posted them on Lost & Found as promised. Then came bad news and good news.

Well, we were given an ultimatum by my wife's uncle, who is our landlord: we had to remove "Baby" from the tie out because she was bellowing late at night. So, we gave her another bath and combed her really well, checked her for ticks all over and allowed her to spend the night in our house.
At first we had a tough time getting her in the house. She did not know what to make of the idea of going into this "big cave." But she eventually saw the benefit of air conditioning and no flies as a good thing.

She did alright overnight, except that her way of telling me she needed to go out was to wake me up at three AM by licking my face and insisting that we play. When I finally figured out that she needed to go out, I walked her and my Dachsie in the dark until bladder matters were well resolved. There upon she returned to the bedroom and took the philosophical position that if the Dachsie had bed rights, she should have them as well.

Fortunately, I won that philosophical argument and she slept at the foot of the bed on the floor. She also woke me up when she began chewing on my best pair of dress shoes, which resulted in another philosophical discourse that I won by removing the temptation.

Although she is a bit afflicted with attention deficit disorder (because she has apparently never had anyone tell her no, ask her to sit, or lie down, or stay), she is now responding to commands to sit, lie down and stay, She still tests the limits of my resolve, but she is learning. Fortunately, she is very food motivated and a treat gets her attention rather adeptly.

She is responding to the antibiotics the doctor prescribed, and her ears are no longer as tender as they were a few days ago. The oral antibiotics, however, have a steroid component and have affected her appetite and she is literally seeking out every scrap of food on the planet. Her energy level is up and she is playing, rolling on the floor with me and looking for toys.

My wife spoke to me this morning about working on the issue of having a shelter resource in Lee County. After she returns to work she wants to work on finding the funds to build a shelter and provide educational and rescue resources for the county. She has become disillusioned with the way some people treat their "pets." My suggestion was that we needed to not only develop a shelter for Lee County, but also develop a working network with all the existing shelters and organizations in the region.

Anyway, my wife is now worried that I have allowed "Baby" to occupy a spot in my heart. She sees the playing and rolling around on the floor as a sign that I will have difficulty surrendering her to an adoptive family. As much as she has touched my heart, I genuinely see my role as a short-term foster parent until I get her into a loving and caring family home. My Dachshund has my heart and first place... But "Baby" is a sweetie and should be in the loving arms of a family ASAP.

I have been trying to coordinate with a man from Forrest City, who called me and expressed an interest in "Baby." I will try contacting him again today.
Many thanks to all of you for the help that you have provided. This pup's life and health have improved 100% in just the few days we have helped her. She is a tremendous pup that has responded very well to our structure, love and kindness. She is learning to walk on the leash without struggling, she is responding to basic obedience commands (she still needs a lot of work before we can call her "trained"), and is learning when she can be rambunctious and when she needs to settle down. I could not have done this without your support with the vet, the medications and the hope of getting her placed in a good home.

I wasn't sure at this point whether he would have to relocate Baby immediately because of the landlord but I could also see that he was becoming very fond of her and would keep her for as long as he possibly could. Baby received the heartworm prevention she needed from the same donor who this time merely answered "Done!" when told that it was needed. The man who saved Baby learned that there were some wonderful people in Arkansas after all! Then came the best news of all.

My new friends,

We have successfully found a home for Baby. He owns a piece of property on the outskirts of Forrest City proper with a big fenced in yard (fence is 8 feet tall) and has automatic watering and feeding devices set up for all his pups. He was more than willing--and quite familiar with the process--to continue the regiment of medications prescribed. The six-month supply of heartworm prophylaxis was a godsend and he has committed to maintaining that prevention year round with Baby and his other pups.
It turns out that he is a friend to one of my wife's cousins and comes highly regarded by many in the family. He has a family (one daughter) that took to the pup like a duck in water. He was also impressed when I related to him that I had only been working with Baby for about a week and she was responding so well to the basic obedience commands (as demonstrated in the driveway where we exchanged her). I think this was a good match.

This is one dog rescued from neglect and discard. We need to continue the process.
In that light, my wife and I have been discussing how to proceed with developing a shelter and humane society affiliate in Lee County.

But we have pulled off a small miracle. Baby is set on a road toward happiness as a healthy and well-loved pup. Again, this miracle was pulled off with your help and I thank each of you from the depth of my soul.
Jim

If through this experience other Humane Societies are formed and other shelters are built to care for and endeavor to find loving homes for homeless and neglected or abused animals then we have done our job! Thank you, Baby, for the good things you may have started and the lessons we have learned because there was a "German Shepherd in Trouble in Moro!"

NOTE: Since the story of Baby ended with her adoption by a firefighter in Forrest City, there have been numerous stories about animal neglect in Arkansas, as well as throughout the United States, including a bust of eighty people for cockfighting throughout Arkansas, the involvement of major NFL players in pit bull fighting, and the broadcast of cockfighting over the Internet in violation of a law passed during the Clinton administration (one that will probably not stand up in court because of constitutional issues).

Like far too many things involving our legal system, politics and daily living, the abuse and neglect of animals takes a back seat unless there is some sensational reason--like the involvement of an NFL superstar in the process--to make it news. But we have a moral obligation to intervene in all cases of abuse and neglect.

There is a striking bit of irony in these matters: The very first case of child neglect in this country was brought to court in New York under the provisions of laws against cruelty of animals. Now there are many laws protecting children, and many organizations, agencies and governmental bodies involved in child abuse and neglect intervention, and so few such groups dealing with animal abuse and neglect.

Immigration Dissonance Revealed In A Joke

2007-07-17T01:51:00.000-07:00

I have written many times that I am conflicted over the way US immigration policy is implemented. Historically our immigration policies and practices have been racist and based on corporate desire to exploit one ethnic group or another for cheap labor resources. Today, as is cited in David Sirota's "Hostile Takeover," American corporations are sending jobs overseas to exploit Third World and Asian labor markets at the expense of American workers.

Still, as was illustrated in a joke that I received in my e-mail a few days ago, most Americans are dead set on blaming the various immigrant groups for the economic hardships most Americans are facing. Like most jokes that are based on ethnicity, the punch line is based upon stereotypes that a) have some kernel of truth to a very small degree; b) distort that kernel of truth in an extensively exaggerated way; c) are hurtful and shamefully reflect that loss of truly American values and spirituality; and d) demonstrates the mass ignorance that we Americans perpetrate in the name of nationalism, xenophobia, fear and "patriotism."

The joke is funny. Much like the joke that Whoopi Goldberg told in her recent cable special where she uses the infamous "N-word" to illustrate why we tell such jokes, but also why we are so conflicted over the use of such words, this joke will make most of us laugh. Equally, and oddly, this joke will make most of us uncomfortable with our laughter and the truth behind the joke... or at least it should.

In order to really examine the issues, I am posting the joke so that we can really take a look at our collective conscience and see if we really want to be the people that we appear to be when we pass this joke around via our e-mail:

A Somali man arrives in Minneapolis as a new immigrant to the United States He stops the first person he sees walking down the street and says, "Thank you Mr. American for letting me in this country, giving me housing, food stamps, free medical care, and free education!"

The passerby says, "You are mistaken, I am Mexican."

The man goes on and encounters another passerby. "Thank you for having such a beautiful country here in America !"

The person says, "I not American, I Vietnamese."

The new arrival walks further, and the next person he sees he stops, shakes his hand and says, "Thank you for the wonderful America !"

That person puts up his hand and says, "I am from Middle East , I am not American!"
He finally sees a nice lady and asks, "Are you an American?"

She says, "No, I am from Africa !"

Puzzled, he asks her, "Where are all the Americans?"

The African lady checks her watch and says..."Probably at work".

Unfortunately, the reality of immigrants--legally here or not--in America is nowhere near the reality depicted in this joke. The immigrant families I have worked with as a social worker in Boston and Chicago areas have often had the father and mother of the family working two or three jobs, most of them at minimum wage without any benefits or potential for raises. In many cases, as has been the case for immigrant families throughout American history, the children of these families end up working to support the family in some way as soon as they are able to do so.

In the Chicago area, I worked with families that primarily worked in the restaurant industry, if not the hotel service industry. These industries are notorious for not paying well, abusing their workers, and hiring under the table, especially when dealing with immigrants (legally here or not) who do not understand their rights as workers.

The families I worked with in the Boston area included Vietnamese and Cambodian families where EVERYONE in the family worked. Often, like so many immigrants in the past, these folks would work in a family-owned restaurant, starting work at 5:00 AM and working until 11:00 at night. The children of these immigrant families leave school only to arrive at the family restaurant to work at food prep. Like my own family, the parents view their labor as necessary for the family to survive in our economy. Like my own family, where I worked in my step-father's construction company from age 10 to 18, these children are not usually paid for their labors.

The Lebanese families I worked with in Worcester often worked in the hotel service or cleaning business, having two or three jobs ongoing at a time. One Lebanese family I met while living in Norwood, Massachusetts, operated a wonderful Middle Eastern restaurant. The father, mother, brother, sister-in-law and their children all worked in the restaurant. After 15 years of hard work, the family began experiencing some prosperity. But that prosperity sits on a tightrope in our economy when tax cuts benefit the rich and hurt the Middle Class and the poorest among us; when cost of petroleum products, like plastics used in the restaurant business, rises and cannot easily be passed along to customers; when the cost of education, medical care, gasoline, food, utilities and everything else rises faster than wages and revenues; and when there is a gaping wound in our overall economic realities.

The FACTS show that the majority of welfare fraud is committed by 1-3% of welfare recipients, most of whom are born in America as American citizens. The FACTS show that most immigrant families that receive any type of state or federal assistance eventually work their way off the welfare roles while those American families that have received welfare assistance are often caught in what has been called the cycle of poverty. The FACTS show that most of those American-born families are white, not minorities, and not immigrants.

Then there is the reality of the workplace. When I worked for RCN in Boston, my office was filled with folks from Mexico, India, the Caribbean, Dominican Republic, Ireland, England, and South America. The job I took after that had immigrants from China, Vietnam, Australia and Guatemala. My wife worked for TicketMaster in Chicago and had office mates from all over the world.

So, while the joke is funny, it is a joke based on an erroneous stereotype that has been in place for time immemorial. When my Irish ancestors came to this country, there were signs in the windows of Boston and surrounding communities that literally read "Irish Need Not Apply." These Irish were labeled as lazy, "no-good for nothings," and other ethnic slurs.

During the era when large numbers of Italians came to New York and Boston, the Italians were labeled in much the same way as those coming across our southern borders today (1880s Italians were called Guineas and WOPS. In New York, these Italian-Americans were initially confined to tenement apartments in an area that is now referred to as "Little Italy." But history has changed most of "Little Italy" into parts of "China Town." Then again, China Town is fast becoming "Asia Town" because of new immigrants from Vietnam, Cambodia, and other parts of the "Far East."

In Boston, these Italian-Americans replaced the Jews that had originally congregated into the North End of Boston. The North End is currently renowned for its Italian community, Italian restaurants, and Italian bakeries. But even that is changing as gentrification is moving in and the Italian flavor of the North End.

In Boston and New York, Italians were labeled as no-good. In fact, in the movie, "It's A Wonderful Life," there is a line that demonstrates the prejudice against Italian families when mean Old Mr. Potter calls them "nothing but garlic eaters."

Today Hispanics coming across the border are called "wet backs" and "spics"). But in my day, there were all kinds of slurs against Puerto Ricans moving from San Juan to Boston or New York. Supposedly, these folks were only moving to these places for the welfare benefits. This perception is strange because anyone that has tried to get benefits for anything in New York City can vouch how difficult, tedious, embarrassing and humiliating seeking aid is in that city.

When I was growing up, my mother had several periods of time where she was a single parent. During those times we lived in "The Projects" and received welfare. The social workers of the 1960s would enter our home and inspect every inch of the place looking for signs that my mother might be living with a man. Many times I watched my mother beg her social workers--none of whom had an inkling of an idea what it meant for my mother to beg them for help-- for basic things like school clothes for the new school year because she could not afford them. If my mother found a low-paying job, there were no benefits, and her welfare (AFDC) was cut off completely. If she received help from my grandparents, she would lose what little was "given" to her by the government. It was a "Catch 22" that humiliated her to no end. She fought hard to get off welfare and worked like a dog most of her life... just like most poor families... and just like most immigrant families. IT is important to note that while my maternal grandmother's family had roots going back to the 1600s, my maternal grandfather was a first generation immigrant... and my paternal grandparents were third generation Americans.

Those immigrants from Central Eastern European and Slavic countries were called "Hunkies" and labeled as useless when they came to America. They worked in the coal, steel and refinery industries. They settled in pocket communities that were often looked down upon by the established ethnic groups in the area where they settled. Northwest Indiana, Chicago, parts of Wisconsin, parts of Pennsylvania and parts of New York are places where Serbs, Croatians, Poles and similar immigrant groups are found in abundance. While many of these families have found some measure of prosperity today, they lived lives of poverty, abuse and exploitation for at least three or four generations.

The abuse and exploitation of Chinese and Japanese immigrants in America from 1820 to the 1950s is a legendary demonstration of our history of exploitation, racism and use of stereotypes and prejudice to justify our insecurities, fears, xenophobia, and bad immigration policies. But anyone that has studied the history of the Chinese or Japanese in America can attest to the fact that these folks, and the families that have emerged from the very first immigrants, have worked hard and accomplished much for our nation.

Each of these immigrant groups have eventually grown in terms of political power and prosperity in the places that they congregated when they first arrived. Many have migrated from inner city neighborhoods to suburban lives, leaving the tenements and exploitive nature of inner city ethnic neighborhoods to the next immigrant group coming to America with hopes and dreams.

But we are seeing a new phenomenon in terms of immigrants in America. They are arriving in a new state of enslavement. They are often relegated to jobs that are not on the radar scope of the "rest of America." Sweat shops for the garment industry, sex slaves and prostitution, drug trafficking and exploitive under-the-table jobs are all that are open to them. Anyone that has taken a taxi ride in New York, Chicago, Boston or Washington will tell you that immigrants from around the world are working 16-20 hours a day trying to make a living as a taxi driver... and are usually paying out more than 70% of their daily revenues just to stay afloat.

The 1970s brought an influx of Cambodians and Vietnamese into the US. If anyone were to check the demographics of welfare rolls, there would be less than 5% of those receiving welfare identified within either of these ethnic groups. Yet, when they arrived, there were all kinds of erroneous rumors and slurs about these folks being on the welfare rolls, receiving tons of money for immigrating, and driving brand new cars while living two or three families to an apartment. Almost none of these stereotypes were true.

Let's face it... Our approach to immigration, racism, prejudice and welfare are all munged. We are being fed a lot of misinformation, disinformation, and emotional bovine excrement. When any of us bother to research the facts, or get exposure to the realities, these stereotypes do not hold up under scrutiny.

But here are some things from David Sirota's "Hostile Takeover: How Big Money & Corruption Conquered Our Government--And How We Take It Back" (available in paperback):

"The result today [regarding tax breaks for corporations] is that for every dollar the federal government receives from coporate and individual income taxes, it gives away at least 75 cents in the form of deductions, exemptions, exclusions, preferences, and deferrals."

Most of those go to big business and corporations.

"In reality, America is operating like a Third World tax haven [for corporations]. As a St. Petersburg Times editorial put it, 'April 15 is just another day [companies] don't have to worry about paying taxes [because] corporations have been allowed, even encouraged, to dodge their tax responsibility.'"

"In 2004 the Detroit News found that the cost of Bush tax cuts for 'the richest 10 percent this year alone will total $148 billion.' The paper noted this is 'twice as much as the government will spend on job training, $6.2 billion; college Pell grants, $12 billion; public housing, $6.3 billion; low-income rental subsidies, $19 billion; child care, $4.8 bilion; insurance [health] for low-income children, $5.2 billion; low-income energy assistance, $1.8 billion; meals for shut-ins, $180 million; and welfare, $16.9 billion.'"

That equates to tax breaks for the richest among us: $148 BILLION

Total spent on all of those "welfare" programs: $72.4 BILLION

Please bear in mind this does not account for all of those no-bid contracts that have produced no tangible results here, in the US, and abroad. Nor does it account for the many BILLIONS we spend overseas without ever requiring any accountability on the part of those regimes receiving our tax dollars in the form of foreign aid (aid that helped produced Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Pinochet, the Iran-Contra Affair, and still supports the Saudis (yes, the Saudis, as rich as they are, receive aid from the US in military affairs), and many former Soviet states that are essentially corrupt or controlled by dictatorships). Nor does it account for the billions in forgiven debt sponsored by the US to other nations, including Brazil, Nigeria, Somalia, and elsewhere. Nor does it account for the 10-20 billion spent every month in Iraq alone (never mind the money being spent in Afghanistan, Kosovo, and elsewhere). Should I throw in the billions spent on behalf of Israel?

While our politicians are busy blaming welfare and immigration for our problems, the truth of the matter, they are giving away our tax dollars far faster than any immigrant or welfare recipient in America could steal them... We are being led around by our collective noses toward "facts" that are not factual, not real and appeal to our emotions rather than our sense of justice, fairness, compassion, equity or true Americanism.

The Exaggeration Of Al-Qaeda, Again

2007-07-13T05:22:00.001-07:00

Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert

In his recent address to the nation about Iraq, President Bush kept referring to Al-Qaeda being in Iraq, its continued efforts to undermine and attack the United States, and the importance of stabilizing Iraq to the safety and security of the US and the rest of the world. He even made the claim that the same people that are causing the problems in Iraq were involved in the events of 9-11.

But we are being told the "big lie" once again.

First, Al-Qaeda was never present in Iraq before the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Any Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq today is a direct result of the US presence in Iraq, which upset the strict, authoritarian security and persecutions that were in place under the Saddam Hussein regime. While Hussein was a dictator with a penchant for human rights violation, the use of torture, the indiscriminate use of police and security powers, violation of international law through the use of chemical weapons against his own people, and so much more... But the level of violence among the factions present in Iraq at the time--the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shi'ites--remained non-existent. Event the influence of Iran's ultra-conservative Shi'ite, ultra-Islamist clergy was kept to a minimum.

Al-Qaeda was never a factor in the pre-invasion Iraq. Even after our illegal invasion of Iraq, Al-Qaeda's influence is only to stir those people and groups that were already involved in the struggle for sharing or controlling the power that was torn away from the Hussein regime. The Shi'ites saw an opportunity for the majority group in Iraq to take control and exert power that they had been denied for decades under the Baath regimes, and especially under the oppressive Hussein regime. Not only were they now capable of practicing their religious ceremonies that were quelled or prohibited under Hussein's rule, but they were seeing an opportunity to grab some oil wealth and political power.

The Sunnis were in a struggle to keep control over their relative wealth (wealth compared to most Shi'a), political participation and power (most Baath members were Sunna), and establish a better distribution of the oil wealth that was once pocketed by Hussein, his family and his friends. The Sunnis in Iraq before the invasion were not interested in Al-Qaeda at all... they had their own problems just trying to stay on the good side of the Hussein regime and assuring that their sectarian and secular power would not be further dampened by Saddam's whims. Al-Qaeda's influence in the post-invasion era has been to supply arms, money and training for insurgents. The fact that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq is a direct result of the US invasion and erosion of all border and national security.

The Kurds are just happy to have a change of government that allows their identity to emerge and an opportunity to share in wealth, government and power that were denied to them not only by the Hussein regime, but almost every nation in that region of the world, including Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Macedonia, the Balkan nations, etc.

So when Bush and company continue hyping the influence and presence of Al-Qaeda as a threat to the United States and the rest of the world, he is lying. He is manipulating the truth of matters to push his distorted agenda and perverted understanding of the Middle East, and his prejudiced, pre-determined invasion plans that are solely designed to circumvent the control over Middle East oil reserves for the Big Business powers in the US, especially those that have expanded to multi-national and globalized status. Since the Bush family is wealthy because of oil and business centered around the oil industry, it makes sense that taking de facto control over the oil in Iraq would aid the Bush family and their friends in the oil industries--and the oil-related industries.

Since many will scoff at this assertion that Bush is all about the oil and the interests of Big Business, I point out that their is no other legitimate rationale for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There never was a threat to US national security by the Hussein regime. Even Hussein's defiance of the no-fly zones and the sanctions against Iraq left over from the first Gulf War did not rise to the level of threat that Bush asserted before the invasion and occupation. The fact is, as was evident by the failure of Iraqi forces to deal with US and coalition forces during the invasion, the Iraqi armed forces and Republican Guard were disorganized, ill-equipped and a definitive mismatch. Many Iraqi soldiers were so eager to surrender that some were doing so to CNN news crews.

So, why is Bush still asserting Al-Qaeda is a powerful presence in Iraq and the Iraqi version of Al-Qaeda is a powerful threat to the US? There can only be two answers to that question. Either Bush and his officers are completely incompetent, or they are so intent upon an agenda not fully revealed to us that they are willing to lie, twist, turn and pervert the facts to complete their latent plans.

A rational human being would have a difficult time justifying the total incompetence argument because there can't be that many irrational, incompetent people in the government. Even if all of Bush's cabinet were that incompetent--and most assuredly some are--the career foreign service officers, ambassadors and State Department officials would certainly speak out. With all of our international think tanks and policy analysts, one would think there would be some sort of consensus among them that would take such incompetence to task.

So, if we can rule out the total incompetence theory, we are left with the idea that there is an underlying agenda. That idea is supported by the numerous lies and distortions--and the wide-spread secrecy--practiced by the Bush administration. The number of scandals over lies being offered to Congress and the general public is astounding. Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzales, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney and so many others have been caught in lies, half-truths and distortions that we know we cannot trust them (nor can we go hunting with Cheney).

We are even told by high Bush officials that have resigned that any opposition to the agenda set forth by Bush and his gang of fascist thugs is treated with a full court press of political, supervisory and public relations power. We have those US District Attorneys as one example. We have a recently resigned Surgeon General as well. Colin Powell has hinted at similar problems while he held the office of Secretary of State. We have CIA, Foreign service officers and military officers (i.e. Mary Ann Wright) who have made public these types of incidents. Even members of the Republican hierarchy have produced books about the deliberate distortions offered by the Bush administration. Richard Clarke's testimony and book details a lot about these distortions. Bob Woodward's book does as well.

As for the Big Business connections, all we have to refer to is Steven Emerson's "The American House of Saud" (c.a. 1984) and David Sirota's "Hostile Takeover" (2007) to see the connections. While both investigators point to an across-the-aisle connection, both indicate that the Republicans have the larger interests in supporting Big Business and involvement in bigger and badder scandals (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Jack Abramoff, the S&L scandals of the 80s, Randall "Duke" Cunnigham, etc.)

Additionally, under the Republican banner and leadership, we have seen a very active resistance to facts and figures, offering subjective views about scientific and medical matters rather than accepting the consensus of the science and medical communities. Bush and company have insisted on "abstinence-only" sex education when there is significant and reliable evidence--including evidence from proponents of the concept and approach--that abstinence-only does not work. The entirety of the meteorological community has all but endorsed the problems of global warming as approaching catastrophic proportions, only to be scoffed at by Bush and company, including loading the decks of the government authority on these matters with supervisors and managers that have had to take leave to deal with the uprising against them. The distortions offered by Bush and company on stem cell research are numerous and appeal to the emotions of right-winged Christians rather than seeking procedural steps to preclude their assertions of harm to humanity from being possible. Even the governmental role of the EPA in protecting air and water quality has been adversely influenced by Bush and company, right up to the point of having a US court issue a judgment against the Bush administration's restrictions--restrictions that were placed upon the government's own experts.

Hitler and company made the assertion (c.f. Mein Kampf) that a big lie is more believable than a bunch of little lies. We are seeing the same propaganda and public relations approach used by Hitler's bunch used by Bush and company, even to the point of hiring Tony Snow away from Fox News, no doubt due to his undeniable ability to twist facts into propaganda when reporting them on the Fox networks.

I tire of the big lie. It is time for Bush and company to recognize we are failing in Iraq and that there hidden agenda is no longer as hidden as it once was. People are beginning to talk and are being heard. If the idiots in Congress would grow some balls, some backbones and some integrity, we would withdraw from Iraq within the next six months.

In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush’s critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.

The American military and American intelligence agencies characterize Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia as a ruthless, mostly foreign-led group that is responsible for a disproportionately large share of the suicide car bomb attacks that have stoked sectarian violence. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander in Iraq, said in an interview that he considered the group to be “the principal short-term threat to Iraq.”

But while American intelligence agencies have pointed to links between leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the top leadership of the broader Qaeda group, the militant group is in many respects an Iraqi phenomenon. They believe the membership of the group is overwhelmingly Iraqi. Its financing is derived largely indigenously from kidnappings and other criminal activities. And many of its most ardent foes are close at home, namely the Shiite militias and the Iranians who are deemed to support them.

REFERENCE:

No Progress Report

CIA Said Instability Seemed 'Irreversible'

White House Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up

Rough Justice - The Case Against Alberto Gonzales

Part I: Alberto Gonzales: A Willing Accessory at Justice

Part II: Alberto Gonzales, Presidential Enabler

Part III: Alberto Gonzales: The "Empty Suit" AG

Gonzales Knew About Violations, Officials Say

Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations: After Bureau Sent Reports, Attorney General Said He Knew of No Wrongdoing

This is not our fight: Congress must end U.S. role in a civil war nobody voted for

Part IV: The Case for Attorney General Patrick Fitzgerald

Ex-Aide to Respect Confidentiality Of White House in Hill Testimony

On Leave, Hurricane Center's Director Is in the Eye of the Storm

Ex-Surgeon General Says White House Hushed Him

The New Hippocratic Oath

Ask the Doctor

After Lobbying, Wetlands Rules Are Narrowed

Racism Is Alive & Well In Arkansas

2007-07-10T23:44:00.000-07:00

Ain’t No Gentle Rain In Arkansas
James Downey

I have yet to feel a gentle rain
In Arkansas

I know it sometimes sprinkles
A few drops
Heavy and sad

But most of the time
Downpours
And storms
Are the norm

A gentle rain cleanses the soul
And feeds the earth
Rinsing away the minor sins
Washing away arrogance

I have yet to feel a gentle rain
In Arkansas

I need the rain to fall
Gently on my shoulders
Reminding me of goodness
And gentler times

But most of the time
Lightning strikes
Thunder roars
And the soil muddies up

There is no gentle rain
In Arkansas

And I am dying from the heat
The turmoil
The dirt
And the dust
That is 100 years old
Or older still

Copyright 2007 – James M. Downey

Here, In Silence, Are Twenty More

2007-07-10T23:42:00.000-07:00

watch PBS News Hour almost every day. It is the only mainstream media outlet that pays homage to our fallen soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen in a proper manner, with regard for their families and a solemnity that a warrior deserves. But when I heard the phrase, "Here, in silence are twenty more..." I could not help but find shame in being an American, because we are doing wrong in the world... In being a veteran, because I can not stop our wrong doing or the unwarranted deaths of my fellow veterans... In being a Christian, because my political leaders are using God to justify mass numbers of death, unjustified war, and the deaths (and injuries) of our young warriors who believe in justice, fairness, duty, honor and a faith in our nation. That this poem was created on July 4th is striking for me.

Here In Silence
James Downey
Here, in Silence,
Are twenty more…

Their names
And faces
Roll across the screen

I know them not,
But I recognize them
As brothers

A band of brothers
Willing to face death
For cause
And belief
In what is ultimately right
And righteous

But I know these brothers
Have died in vain
Laying down all
For foolish cause
And the folly of powerful
Forces
Forces over which they have no control
Forces over which they had no control
Forces that controlled their fate
But forces that had no control

Unlike my brothers
Who sacrificed their all
These forces make no sacrifice at all
These forces made no sacrifice at all
And these forces should have had control

Isn’t it strange…
We all claim to believe in what is right
And righteous
But cannot find what is right
About
Here, in silence
Are twenty more?

Copyright 2007 – James M. Downey,

Did Gonzalez Merely Lie... Or Did He Commit Perjury?

2007-07-10T23:31:00.000-07:00

Gonzales Was Told of FBI Violations: After Bureau Sent Reports, Attorney General Said He Knew of No Wrongdoing

As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Evidently, Attorney General Gonzales cannot tell the difference between the truth and an outright lie. If, however, he claims that he was unaware of these reports of wrongdoing by the FBI, then he convicts himself of being incompetent in his job. So the question we are left with is a choice between three alternatives:

1. Alberto Gonzales lied to congress, which is a felony even if it is not under oath, and punishable by up to 10 years in prison;
2. Alberto Gonzales committed perjury by lying underoath, which is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison;
3. Alberto Gonzales is a complete incompetent in his role as the top law enforcement officer and as an officer of the US government and our federal courts.

In either case, it is clear that Gonzales has executed specific malfeasance, conspiracy with others in our government to defraud the public and Congress, and is unfit to hold his office.

The acts recounted in the FBI reports included unauthorized surveillance, an illegal property search and a case in which an Internet firm improperly turned over a compact disc with data that the FBI was not entitled to collect, the documents show. Gonzales was copied on each report that said administrative rules or laws protecting civil liberties and privacy had been violated. The reports also alerted Gonzales in 2005 to problems with the FBI's use of an anti-terrorism tool known as a national security letter (NSL), well before the Justice Department's inspector general brought widespread abuse of the letters in 2004 and 2005 to light in a stinging report this past March.

Liar, Liar, Gonzales' pants should be on fire! Are we ever going to get a truthful answer about anything going on in our government under the direction of this president and his cabinet?

Justice officials said they could not immediately determine whether Gonzales read any of the FBI reports in 2005 and 2006 because the officials who processed them were not available yesterday. But department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that when Gonzales testified, he was speaking "in the context" of reports by the department's inspector general before this year that found no misconduct or specific civil liberties abuses related to the Patriot Act.

If Gonzales failed to read these reports, or if those that processed them failed to alert him specifically about these violations of our laws, then he proves he is incapable of being our top law enforcement officer, who is supposed to be the primary person responsible for protecting our civil liberties and enforcing the US Constitution.

"The statements from the attorney general are consistent with statements from other officials at the FBI and the department," Roehrkasse said. He added that many of the violations the FBI disclosed were not legal violations and instead involved procedural safeguards or even typographical errors. Each of the violations cited in the reports copied to Gonzales was serious enough to require notification of the President's Intelligence Oversight Board, which helps police the government's surveillance activities. The format of each memo was similar, and none minced words.

Bovine excrement in the extremis! Who are they kidding. A failure to observe civil rights and the proper procedure is both a civil and criminal breach of law under several laws, including the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, the Bill of Rights (a part of our Constitution), and several provisions of the USA PAtriot Act.

"This enclosure sets forth details of investigative activity which the FBI has determined was conducted contrary to the attorney general's guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection and/or laws, executive orders and presidential directives," said the April 21, 2005, letter to the Intelligence Oversight Board.

The oversight board, staffed with intelligence experts from inside and outside government, was established to report to the attorney general and president about civil liberties abuses or intelligence lapses. But Roehrkasse said the fact that a violation is reported to the board "does not mean that a USA Patriot violation exists or that an individual's civil liberties have been abused."

What kind of doubletalk is this statement? Most FBI agents are trained lawyers (almost 70% according to FBI statistics), most of whom are admitted to the bar in several states and allowed to appear on behalf of the government within the federal courts. Are we really expected to belief that the top law enforcement organization and its officers are so unfamiliar with our laws that they do not understand when a breach of that law has occurred?

Two of the earliest reports sent to Gonzales, during his first month on the job, in February 2005, involved the FBI's surveillance and search powers. In one case, the bureau reported a violation involving an "unconsented physical search" in a counterintelligence case. The details were redacted in the released memo, but it cited violations of safeguards "that shall protect constitutional and other legal rights." The second violation involved electronic surveillance on phone lines that was reinitiated after the expiration deadline set by a court in a counterterrorism case.

This seems clear and plain to me... The FBI recognized its own violation of the standards of law. The FBI followed the law and reported these breaches and our government, as represented by President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales, conspired to ignore these felonies and misdeeds.

The report sent to Gonzales on April 21, 2005, concerned a violation of the rules governing NSLs, which allow agents in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations to secretly gather Americans' phone, bank and Internet records without a court order or a grand jury subpoena. In the report -- also heavily redacted before being released -- the FBI said its agents had received a compact disc containing information they did not request. It was viewed before being sealed in an envelope.

Gonzales received another report of an NSL-related violation a few weeks later. "A national security letter . . . contained an incorrect phone number" that resulted in agents collecting phone information that "belonged to a different U.S. person" than the suspect under investigation, stated a letter copied to the attorney general on May 6, 2005.

At least two other reports of NSL-related violations were sent to Gonzales, according to the new documents. In letters copied to him on Dec. 11, 2006, and Feb. 26, 2007, the FBI reported to the oversight board that agents had requested and obtained phone data on the wrong people.

Nonetheless, Gonzales reacted with surprise when the Justice Department inspector general reported this March that there were pervasive problems with the FBI's handling of NSLs and another investigative tool known as an exigent circumstances letter.

These reports demonstrate the level of incompetence inherent in the process of covert and secret wiretaps that are not reviewed by a court PRIOR to instituting the tap or search. These reports demonstrate why it is imperative to provide for a full and complete adherence to the provisions of the Foruth Amendment standard of sworn testimony before a magistrtate or justice, and clear evidence of probable cause, before a search, seizure, arrest or wiretap is authorized. While we can all agree mistakes can happen, fewer mistakes will occur if the proper Fourth Amendment procedures are followed.

"I was upset when I learned this, as was Director Mueller. To say that I am concerned about what has been revealed in this report would be an enormous understatement," Gonzales said in a speech March 9, referring to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller. The attorney general added that he believed back in 2005, before the Patriot Act was renewed, that there were no problems with NSLs. "I've come to learn that I was wrong," he said, making no mention of the FBI reports sent to him.

Convenient lies if ever there were any. Can we believe anything this man says? I think not.

Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer for the nonpartisan Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, "I think these documents raise some very serious questions about how much the attorney general knew about the FBI's misuse of surveillance powers and when he knew it." A lawsuit by Hofmann's group seeking internal FBI documents about NSLs prompted the release of the reports.

Yeah! We should all be supporting EFF!

Caroline Fredrickson, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the new documents raise questions about whether Gonzales misled Congress at a moment when lawmakers were poised to renew the Patriot Act and keenly sought assurances that there were no abuses. "It was extremely important," she said of Gonzales's 2005 testimony. "The attorney general said there are no problems with the Patriot Act, and there was no counterevidence at the time."

Gonzales has now joined Scooter Libby, Bill Clinton, and others from our government in the trend of lying to us and our congress. Nobody with a sound mind can argue that these lies are not intentional, leading us to the conclusion that there is an ongoing conspiracy on the part of Gonzales and his superiors to deliberately lie to us and mislead us.

Some of the reports describe rules violations that the FBI decided not to report to the intelligence board. In February 2006, for example, FBI officials wrote that agents sent a person's phone records, which they had obtained from a provider under a national security letter, to an outside party. The mistake was blamed on "an error in the mail handling." When the third party sent the material back, the bureau decided not to report the mistake as a violation.

Should the FBI, or any agency of the government, be allowed to determine its own violations of law? Should we have a government that operates completely in the dark as the current leadership desires? This is wrong in so many ways... and it violates our very principles of freedom, justice, fairness and openness in government.

The memos also detail instances in which the FBI wrote out new NSLs to cover evidence that had been mistakenly collected. In a June 30, 2006, e-mail, for instance, an FBI supervisor asked an agent who had "overcollected" evidence under a national security letter to forward his original request to lawyers. "We would like to check the specific language to see if there is anything in the body that would cover the extra material they gave," the supervisor wrote.

This is further evidence of wrongdoing, conspiracy (a legal term in this case) and fraudulent acts on the part of our top law enforcement officials.

Sometimes the FBI reached seemingly contradictory conclusions about the gravity of its errors. On May 6, 2005, the bureau decided that it needed to report a violation when agents made an "inadvertent" request for data for the wrong phone number. But on June 1, 2006, in a similar wrong-number case, the bureau concluded that a violation did not need to be reported because the agent acted "in good faith."

Can a pattern of fraud, conspiracy and outright violation of the laws of our nation be considered "good faith" at any time? I think not.

VA Care Systems Remain Broken

2007-07-10T23:19:00.000-07:00

Commission on Veterans’ Care Recommends Measures to Improve Treatment at Home
By JACQUELINE PALANK

WASHINGTON, June 29 — The presidential commission investigating problems in health care for military personnel wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan held its final hearing Friday, and focused on problems with moving patients through various stages of aid, from Defense Department hospitals to those run by the Veterans Administration or private health care, to home care and to jobs. Today’s veterans are more likely than those of previous conflicts to suffer from “polytrauma,” including burns, brain injury and shrapnel from explosives, members of the commission said, making their treatment more complicated.

The idea that it took a commission of outsiders to identify that veterans of this day and age are more likely to suffer from "polytrauma" (multiple injuries to multiple body areas) illustrates the idiocy of the VA system. The VA medical and nursing staff are obviously under-trained and quite disinterested on a large scale. In my view, this is because the VA has resorted to staffing its medical billets with doctors that are trained overseas and have little-to-no commitment to American ideals or appreciation of the sacrifice our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have made just to serve in the Armed Forces, never mind serving in a combat area.

Making matters worse, the VA relies primarily on residents from a multitude of medical schools that are rotated out after a very short period of time. These residents learn a wide variety of skills in a short period of time working with veterans, but they also learn that there is no future working for or with the VA system because of the low pay, poor administration, the lack of proper systemic management, and the inability to follow patients in a systematic and effective manner within the VA system.

We have relegated the care of our veterans to the lowest rung of the health care ladder, even to the point that illegal aliens are more likely to get better care and more interest than those who served faithfully in an honorable manner. Anyone that has received care from the VA, or has worked with the VA over the years, could have told the nation and our military and political leaders that the VA was not up to the task of providing for the needs of our current batch of severely wounded veterans coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the recent issue of the American Legion Magazine there is an article (available in PDF format at http://www.legion.org/) that outlines the fight that veterans have had to make in the courts to get the VA to honor its commitment to provide care for heroes of past eras, never mind those of this era. In one case the fight went on for sixteen (16) years and several layers of our federal courts... all because the VA has been designed to avoid taking responsibility for the proper care of our veterans and dismissive of the promise of health care made to everyone that served honorably.

The health care system should also take into account the strain that puts on family members, commissioners said, and should make more use of contractors who can help in out-patient care. The commission, led by Donna E. Shalala, a Democrat and former secretary of health and human services, and Bob Dole, the Republican presidential nominee in 1996, was established in March after articles in The Washington Post described poor conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center here.

Then, too, the military hospital and medical care system has been significantly cut over the decades since I served. The Naval Regional Medical Centers in Oakland (California), Great Lakes (Illinois), New Orleans (Louisiana), Memphis (Tennessee) and elsewhere have all been reduced in status and staffing to the "Naval Hospital" designation and have suffered staffing shortages since the early 1980s. Some naval hospital facilities have been operating at less than 70% staffing capacity since 1981 and the military solution has been to change the numbers allocated on paper rather than meet the needs of the military communities.

The Army, too, has done much the same thing. Brooks Army Medical Center (BAMC) at Fort Sam Houston--home of the Academy of Health Sciences and the training grounds for almost everything medical in the Army--has been reduced in force several times since I was at Ft. Sam in the late 1970s. BAMC was considered the second flagship hospital for the Army and had a reputation for being excellent at treating burns and shrapnel injuries, but has come under fire in recent years for care that was not up to snuff. The hospital and dispensaries at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri has a notorious reputation among folks in military medical circles.

It should have never required an external commission to take notice that both the military and VA health care systems were in need and providing less than acceptable levels of care, housing or coordination of family needs.

“We’re very solution-driven,” Ms. Shalala said of the panel. “We will not be issuing a report that points fingers.”

Shalala couldn't get out of her own way when she was the head honcho at HHS. Why she was chosen for this commission is a mystery. The commission is not representative of our veteran population. Almost none of its members have ever received care (especially extensive or intensive care) from the military or VA systems.

Besides, it is time we did start pointing some fingers at the politicians and military leaders that have consistently and deliberately put the health care needs of our military and our vets on the back burner while wasting billions of dollars on less important things... like the hundreds of thousands spent on "junket flights" taking high ranking officers and congress critters to Chicago and Indianapolis just in time for the Indy 500 every year. These trips--ostensibly scheduled and arranged for inspection tours--have been going on since I was stationed at Great Lakes and Fort Sheridan was still operating in the northern suburbs of Chicago... and word has it that they are still ongoing.

But we can ignore those issues and expenditures because they pale in comparison to the huge sums of money we spend on corporate welfare, tax breaks for big business and subsidies that are misdirected into the coffers of businesses (i.e. big agro-businesses) that were meant to go to family operations and farms. Or we could take a look at the billions sent overseas without any accountability in the form of foreign aid to regimes that do not distribute funds as intended, but pocket the funds in corrupt ways. In fact, in my research for grant money for a school safety project, I found almost three times as many grants for overseas projects as I have for domestic projects.

Because today’s wounds are different and the families of the veterans are different — many are older, with homes and spouses to return to — more veterans should be allowed to return home for treatment, commissioners said.

Bovine excrement! This is the same type of thinking that brought about the managed care systems that have ruined our health care and insurance coverage systems, and the same type of thinking that has turned the Medicare system into a "denial factory" that lives and breathes by the number of claims it rejects so that a lesser standard and sub-standard level of care can be provided. While it is important to include home care in the regimen of available treatment options, we must be sure not to do so prematurely or as a matter of routine. It has already been demonstrated that the level of follow-up care for veterans is dysfunctional when vets are treated in VA hospitals and clinics... How much more dysfunction and neglect will creep in if vets are not seen except by visiting nurses, aides and home care?

Returning patients to their homes can relieve the strain on some families, said commissioners, who reported that some relatives must now leave their homes and jobs to assist with their service members’ treatment in distant hospitals run by the Departments of Defense or Veterans Affairs. But caring for injuries at home requires support from the V.A., they said, and support offered now is often insufficient.

Yes, the emotional support of families is an important element of care. But as many family members of vets will tell you, their biggest strain and drain comes from fighting for proper and adequate care for their loved ones. Like Medicare, the VA has come to live and breathe for its denial of care and benefits. It has long waiting times for appointments. The level of accuracy of medical records is poor at best, bordering on medical malpractice almost daily (my own VA medical records are inaccurate to a large part due to the constant turnover of residents and the lack of proper history methods). There are families that are still fighting for ordinary care, and many that require extensive care have been forced to fight the system tooth and nail to get care that would have been routinely provided in a civilian setting (i.e. follow-up care for TBI (traumatic brain injury) survivors).

I would suggest that anyone who doubts how screwed up the VA system is should talk to some of the Service Officers of the various veteran groups that work in the hospitals and clinics. Again, I call for the re-training of military medics and corpsman by the VA. I call for legislation in every state and at the federal level that recognizes the excellent training and experience of these medical personnel so that their training and experience can be turned into civilian credentials. I call for social workers and ombudsmen that have military experience. I call for medical and nursing staff that are trained in the United States rather than foreign medical schools. I call for hospital staffing that does not rely solely upon residents rotating through as a part of their training in medical school.

Another consideration is that the patients’ physical wounds are also accompanied by post-traumatic stress disorder, commissioners said.

PTSD was first denied by the VA. Subsequently, it was recognized, but then marginalized by the VA. We have seen reports from reliable news sources that illustrate the denial of PTSD by military commanders, and the stigma that accompanies any request for pre-emptive treatment of PTSD symptoms in the field. If the VA and military medical systems are dysfunctional to the "Nth degree," the psychiatric care system of both institutions is dysfunction to the "Zth degree." Some research is pointing to PTSD developing in veterans that served honorably and never saw any combat... because the level of day-to-day stress, danger and denial of needs in the military is cumulative in effect. Additionally, those vets coming out of the service often have stress relating to the adjustment to civilian life. After living a military life for 6-30 years, coming to a civilian life that limits what work can be done, often suffers from a lack of motivation to get things done efficiently and in a timely manner, and does not recognize the skills and experience level veterans actually possess, there can be overwhelming stress... and a demonstrated record of adjustment difficulties.
The hearing on Friday was the commission’s seventh, and several members of Congress who have introduced legislation on veterans care came to testify. Mr. Dole and Ms. Shalala asked if they would include the commission’s recommendations in pending legislation.

“We would welcome suggestions, absolutely,” said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee.

Mr. Levin said the Senate’s veterans bill, which is scheduled for the floor, seeks to improve medical record sharing between the military and the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as address discrepancies in the disability ratings each department uses to determine how much in benefits a service member is paid each month.

Representative Steve Buyer, Republican of Indiana and the ranking member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said he was concerned that the departments did not adequately use private contractors to provide outpatient treatment, which could allow patients to receive care at home rather than have to travel to a veterans hospital.

“If we’re patient-centric, we should allow the transition of that patient to occur,” Mr. Buyer said.

Ms. Shalala said, “This is a different war in which we have people who have families and they want to go home.”

Buyer, like the Republican governor of Indiana, is fixated on privatization. Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana has been so enthralled with privatization that he has leased the Indiana Toll Road (against the wishes of Indiana citizens), is seeking to sell the Indiana Lottery, and has been privatizing correctional facilities, social work functions and Medicaid services... all with short-sighted short-term gains and ignored long-term losses. The idea of privatizing the VA via contracted outpatient services is just another way of avoiding the promises made to our vets and avoiding the direct responsibility for providing proper care. Like most pro-business proposals offer by the Republican side of the political process, it is designed to undermine the system and will eventually lead to even more failures in providing care for our heroes. The idea of using private contractors will not fix the system, will not assure proper car and will not solve the problems at the VA... but it will raise costs, benefit profit-making (gouging) enterprises and promote fraud in the system.

The Double Standard For Bush & His Thugs Continues

2007-07-07T17:16:00.000-07:00

Adding injury to insult after commuting Scooter Libby's sentence for being involved in revealing the name of a CIA agent to the press--and thereby endangering her, her husband, and hundreds of other agents of our government in the process--is the very idea that Karl Rove can continue to hold a top secret security clearance.

When I was in the military security clearances were a matter of great importance. Even to attend certain "A" schools (Navy), be selected for certain "C" schools (Navy), or to be selected for certain "AIT" or other training (Army), including the various NCO Academies, a member of the military must pass a stringent background investigation and be held to very stringent standards of behavior. A simple arrest for drunkenness, disorderly conduct, or non-judicial punishment for certain offenses, could revoke a security clearance in its entirety. If a specially-trained enlisted person were to lose his/her security clearance, they would be relegated to finish their hitch out doing such useful jobs as maintaining a garbage pit, chipping paint on the side of a ship, or guarding the back doors of the chow hall. Such an enlisted person would not be considered for re-enlistment. If an officer were to lose his/her security clearance, it might well end any career ambitions completely, and possibly result in immediate discharge under less than honorable conditions.

Mind you, it did not take a conviction to cause a security clearance to be withdrawn. All it took was the appearance of some impropriety... and the clearance would be yanked away. While there is a process for challenging such revocation of clearance, the record of success for such challenges is not so good... less than 2-5%, depending on what branch of service, what command, and what role the member plays in the military. Anyone holding a security clearance took it and the role they played in the military--and intelligence community--very seriously.

So, when I see that Karl Rove still holds his clearance, still holds his high-paying job in our government, and is still trusted to handle top secret materials at the highest levels, I have to wonder what in the hell is going on in the West Wing... and whether or not anyone in the US government has an iota of sense in terms of our national security.

Hush-Hush: Rove's Security Clearance Renewal

Should White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove be privy to the nation's most sensitive secrets? Did he break trust with President Bush and the nation when he told syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak about Valerie Plame's classified job with the CIA? Did he further erode that trust in 2003 when he told then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan that, as McClellan put it, there was "no truth" to rumors that he played a role in the disclosure of Plame's identity?

Of course Rove's security clearance should be yanked. It at least appears he violated security, by intent or neglect, even if he was not charged with a crime. However, in my view, according to the standards by which most of us "regular folks" would be judged, Rove violated the law... and Bush and Cheney were in on the deal.

Rove, of course, was investigated by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald in the CIA leak case but was never charged. His security clearance was renewed after a reinvestigation in late 2006, which has puzzled Rep . Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

In a letter sent last week to White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding, Waxman alleged that Rove's actions amounted to a violation of presidential guidelines that say "deliberate or negligent disclosure" of classified information can disqualify a staffer from future access to such material. Also being less than forthcoming, even about unintentional breaches, can be cause for revoking a security clearance.

"Under these standards, it is hard to see how Mr. Rove would qualify for renewal of his security clearance," Waxman wrote.

Waxman cannot understand why Rove was given an "AOK" on reneweal because Waxman is using common sense and an understand of our laws and the rules for national security... which is evidently not understood by the FBI, Secret Service, Treasury Department and others involved in conducting background checks and clearance renewals.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said he could not discuss details but that Rove's "clearance was appropriately renewed as part of the regular process that occurs every five years."

Of course Tony Fratto said these things... He works for the very scoundrels that revealed Plame's identity and role, convinced Libby to fall on his own sword, and commuted the sentence given to Libby, and are now considering Libby's full pardon.

So much for honesty, principle and justice in our nation!

The Audacity & Gal Of It All

2007-07-06T21:15:00.000-07:00

When we were first advised about the leaking of Valerie Plame's role and identity as an agent of the CIA, we were appalled. In numerous statements from the White House, including many directly from the top dog in the Oval Office, we were told that no matter what, whoever leaked the identity of an agent of our intelligence community would be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Then we learned that the leak came from the Office of the Vice President. Yes, we know that Dick Cheney was directly involved, as was Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby. But months of investigation, and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, the only person stuck with the proverbial check was Scooter Libby, who literally fell on his sword to protect Cheney, Rove and Bush.

It's bad enough that we have been duped by the White House and the cronies that serve the chief idiot that occupies our highest elected office, but we have also been duped by the whole investigation process as well. But the ultimate insult comes from the fact that we are not even left with a pound of flesh offered to us by Scooter Libby.

Libby, at least, did an honorable thing in falling on his own sword. At least many among us would consider it an honorable thing to protect the President and Vice President from the primary fallout of such a scandal. In my view, however, Libby has earned himself a place in the historical Hall of Shame along with Aaron Burr, Rudolph Hess, Richard Nixon, G. Gordon Liddy, H.R. Halderman, John Ehrlichman, Virgilio González, Bernard Barker, James W. McCord, Jr., Eugenio Martínez, Frank Sturgis, John Mitchell, Rose Mary Woods, Robert Bork, Charles Colson, Herbert Kalmbach, as well as Oliver North, John Poindexter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Michael Ledeen, Edwin Meese, Caspar Weinberger, Elliot Abrams, John Negroponte, Robert Gates, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert MCFarlane, and Fawn Hall... all of whom wrapped themselves up in our flag and betrayed us, our Constitution, our laws and the spirit of being truly American in either Watergate or the Iran-Contra Affair... and many of whom were pardoned, excused or otherwise not held accountable for their betrayal.

It now seems that the trend of commuting and pardoning criminals against our nation started by Gerald Ford when he took over for Nixon after Watergate became too hot to handle has been passed along as a new trend for the current Bush administration. It is interesting to note that many of the primary players in the Plame Scandal are holdovers from the Watergate and Iran-Contra Affair, or at least related to those that were primary players.

The commutation of Libby's sentence by George W. Bush is a clear sign that Bush and his gang of fascist thugs see themselves above the law and accountable to no one, and to no principles of law or justice. The mere fact that Libby fell on his own sword to save these bastards is a sign that we have been betrayed by those that hold our highest office, including those that hold office in Congress. The only answer that will meet the requirements of justice is impeachment and making those that betrayed us stroll down the "walk of shame" to take their pivotal place in the historical "Hall of Shame."

The hypocrisy, betrayal and unmitigated gall of these bastards is unbelievable.

Bush Commutes Libby Sentence, Saying 30 Months ‘Is Excessive’

Bush Commutes Libby's Prison Sentence

Bush Rationale on Libby Stirs Legal Debate

A Decision Made Largely Alone

Bush Says He's Not Ruling Out Pardon for Libby: President Defends Commutation of Prison Sentence

Commutation Doesn’t Equal a Full Pardon

An Unpardonable Act

The Commuter in Chief

For President, Libby Case Was a Test of Will

From Liddy to Libby

A Declaration The President Ignores

Scooter Libby's Pals, Trusting In Providence

The Lying Game

Today's Editorials: Libby Hypocrisy

The "All White" SCOTUS Bench Is Blind

2007-06-29T21:01:00.000-07:00

Evidently, the current batch of ultra-conservative "Supremes" have designs on just about every progressive act the Supreme Court ever produced. In several hacking attacks on justice in our land, the SCOTUS justices swept aside the intent and letter of the law from Brown v. Board of Education (and Thurgood Marshall is rolling over in his grave), as well as undermining over 90 years of consumer protection by rolling back the restrictions on price fixing between retailers and their producers/suppliers.

It's really nice of Chief Justice Roberts to tout the idea of ending racial segregation by merely waving his magic wand and declaring that the way to deal with racism is not to deal in racism. However, as my experience here in Arkansas reveals, the more we stick our head in the sand over racism, the more pronounced it becomes. Sure, we do not have the overt and profound racism of the Reconstruction Era, but many of those victimized by today's versions of racism will tell you, our forms of racism may be worse... Our forms of racism are only marginally hidden just under the surface of our society and are fast becoming re-institutionalized, just as they were under the Jim Crow Laws, and as they were prior to the Civil Rights Movement.

As for the anti-trust reversal and the protections against consumer-focused frauds, the SCOTUS justices have once again sided with big business and corporations over the rights of individuals, working members of our society, the poor, children and families. In other words, they have screwed us over once again. Of course, Congress could undo both rulings with laws that counter these rulings in a constitutional manner. However, it is unlikely that Congress will do so for the following reasons:

1. Almost no one in Congress has read, or understood, our Constitution in a sufficient manner to understand that they are supposed to protect us;

2. Almost everyone in Congress is paid by Big Business and multi-national corporations that control not only the congress critters by way of out-of-control campaign finance, but by controlling access to congress members and the process of making laws by average citizens;

3. No one in Congress has the leadership skills, the charisma or the talent to get out of their own way and pass laws that make any sense to anyone with an iota of intellect or a scintilla of common sense.

Now someone might notice that I referred to the SCOTUS Bench as being "all white" and object, or at least try to correct me. But Clarence Thomas is what we used to call an "Oreo Cookie": Black on the outside and white on the inside. Once that is realized, the "whiteness" of the bench is obvious. Now, someone might find fault with the idea that being "all white" is somehow a bad thing. Given that our society has never been "all white" in the first place, and efforts to make it so are inherently misplaced and misdirected, having a SCOTUS bench that presents as white supremacists is inherently evil.

When we consider our history, we must understand that we are a society of mongrels. Most of our colonial settlers and homesteaders involved themselves in interracial and inter-cultural relationships (sometimes formal and sometimes informal) in some form or another. Thomas Jefferson has been proven to have had intimate relations with one of his slave women. In fact, a majority of slave owners involved themselves in intimate relations with their slaves, partly as a matter of control, partly as a matter of breeding new slaves, and partly because they were immoral bastards that preached one standard and lived by anything but that standard. The French and Spanish explorers and settlers were passionate about intercourse with Native American women, often producing offspring that they rejected.

Several genealogical studies demonstrate that a lot of European surnames reflect interracial family histories involving the Moors of Spain and North Africa (i.e. Black, Schwartz, Blackwell, Moore, Maher, Negroponte, Morris, etc.). These surnames are found throughout Europe and North America, especially in the United States.

So, when we institutionalize our prejudices and racism, we are denying our own heritage and family secrets, as well as violating the very teachings of Christ that so many lily-white Christian Americans claim as the basis for their values... and their racism.

Justices Limit the Use of Race in School Plans for Integration

Standing in the Schoolhouse Door

Court Ruling Likely to Further Segregate Schools, Educators Say

Century-Old Ban Lifted on Minimum Retail Pricing

REFERENCES:

Not One More Roberts or Alito

Whites Faced Election Bias In Mississippi, Judge Rules

Supreme Court Term Shows Shift to Right

I Am Back... No Thanks To Arkansas ISPs

2007-06-26T17:41:00.000-07:00

I have often engaged in discourse on the "digital divide" that present barriers to Internet access and information. Many times this discourse has involved the need to connect the "Third World" for purposes of economic and political improvement of the lives of people in these countries (most of which are in Africa, Asia and parts of South America). But the truth of the matter is that there are areas in the United States that are so under-served by acceptable and economically accessible Internet connection that these areas might as well be located in Africa, the far eastern parts of Asia, or some remote location in the Amazon.

Arkansas is a state that reflects this access isolation. Despite the laws and programs that have been in place for ten years or more to bring the Internet to rural areas of the United States, most rural areas of Arkansas do not have reasonable or affordable access to the Internet. While there are some dial-up providers, most of them are essentially long distance calls and incur significant costs to use. There are some cable companies providing high-speed cable access, but these mostly serve the few cities and towns that have a population over 1,000. Since most of the cities and towns in Arkansas have under 1,000 people, this is severely limiting. DSL is also limited to regions with a significant customer base. If DSL is offered in a smaller community it is usually limited to those residents that live close to the "business section" of the towns. Unfortunately, those "business sections" are so small that most people don't even notice they were in a "business section."

Satellite service is probably the most reliable option, but the initial costs are about $500, which most people in the rural areas of Arkansas cannot afford. There is a "promotional sale" going on with the major (only) satellite service that allows a monthly payment over 24 months, but it ends up making the monthly bill almost $100. Plus, if you are not using a credit card to pay the monthly bill, there is a $5 to $10 additional charge for mailing a bill to your home. There are also a few other fees that are not directly advertised until you have committed to the sale. In the end, satellite Internet service will end up costing close to $120 per month for the first 24 months (under the payment promotion), unless you are willing to pay $400 up front and use a credit card to pay the monthly tab. Even then, the complete costs for service will be between $75-$100 per month. On top of that, and even if you use a credit card, you must pass a credit check and commit to 24 months of service.

The majority of local elementary schools do not have full Internet access. In Lee County the library does not have computer access for patrons in any shape or form. In St. Francis County the only library I have run into with Internet access is the one in Forrest City, but ordinarily you have to be a library patron to use it... and if you do not live in Forrest City there is a $15 annual fee for access to the library. In Helena-West Helena, located in Phillips County, the library has a limited number of computers for use by patrons, but the use is so regulated that 30 minutes is all you can have, and you cannot surf as you please. Neither the Lee County, St. Francis County or Phillips County libraries are really up-to-date in terms of their books, services, audio-video or computer access. In fact, each and every computer I have used down this way has been so poorly maintained that the virus prevention software has been 6-12 weeks expired on each system and network.

But there are economic, transportation and cultural barriers present down here that just seem to make the Internet a non-entity down here. In most places, even the computer as a tool for word processing, data processing and other standard work-related uses is received as a foreign object that is to be feared.

But I finally found a solution and the money to reconnect to the Internet. I am not fully setup as of yet, but I will be gradually restoring my connections and blogging with some of my same zeal and considered opinions.

I hope some of my more loyal readers will return to read my words.

The Woe That Is Arkansas

2007-06-26T17:38:00.000-07:00

I am newly transplanted to Arkansas from the East Coast by way of Indiana. By all proprieties of Southern etiquette, I should be keeping my mouth shut and working on getting accustomed to the “way of the South” (stealing a line from the “Prince of Tides”). But I cannot keep quiet when I see oppression.

That’s right… I said “OPPRESSION.” There is a level of economic, political and spiritual oppression that permeates the very soul of Arkansas. While there is a church on practically every corner of every intersection—even in areas where there are no corners—there is a spirit of acceptance in terms of this oppression. The politicians in Little Rock beat their collective chests and decry the immorality of popular culture, touting Christian values as the bedrock of Arkansas culture and politics, but their collective and historical actions have done nothing more than create an oppressive and manipulative culture that puts down everyone in the state that is not inherently wealthy.

While it is easy for someone from outside of the “Deep South” to recognize that the remnants of racism that were born during Reconstruction and reportedly defeated during the Civil Rights Era are “wall-to-wall” throughout Arkansas, the oppression I am speaking about affects the majority of white citizens as equally as it does black citizens. The economic hardships that are pervasively present in Arkansas keeps people from having rights in the workplace, choice in the selection of jobs, achievement in education and academics, or even the notion that life as it has been can change.

The entire culture of Arkansas seems to be based on the premise that change produces bad results, that anyone asserting rights is either daft or doesn’t understand normality, and that anyone speaking out is a troublemaker. In the case of our black citizens, anyone that dares to question the way of things is quickly labeled as a no account… I won’t use that word, but suffice it to say that it is a word that is still widely used among the white folks in Arkansas and is deeply offensive to anyone of any race or culture. In fact, many Arkansans think and convey that “word” in conversations between whites and blacks even when they do not use it. The fact that this word and the attitude and hate that goes with it undermines the humanity of the victim to whom it is addressed and the perpetrator that uses it to demean others.

In the case of our white citizens, they are being misled as to the cause of this oppression. They are being told it is because of the lack of business infrastructure and development. They are also being led to believe that our black communities are the reason. But, to quote George C. Scott playing General George Patton, Jr., “a blind man could see it {the cause] in a minute.” The lack of education and cultural experience outside of the “we’ve always done it this way” mentality that permeates Arkansan thinking.

Again, I know I am stepping out-of-bounds here because I am the newcomer. But sometimes it takes an outsider’s perspective to see the things that are obvious but oblivious. One of those obvious but oblivious matters is the fact that no one down here seems to have any enthusiasm for what needs to be done. There is a lot of enthusiasm for making a buck—and I do mean just a buck. But actually getting things done that would improve the overall situation of Arkansas is not a real high priority. Instead of working on poverty, ignorance, health matters, economic development, business infrastructure and the workforce, our major towns and communities have concentrated on passing unconstitutional laws about playing loud or profane music, wearing trousers in such a manner as to expose under garments (but it is okay to wear a speedo or a bikini to the pool or a swimming hole), or other ordinances that infringe upon the basic rights of choice and expression.

While I agree that some music is offensive when played loudly, or when certain words are used in the lyrics, I do not think these issues are so pressing upon the municipal, county or state government that they should have spent one moment on considering them. I also agree that seeing a teenager with his “drawers” hanging low, exposing the general public to knowledge of his/her choice of undergarments is unsightly. However, I cannot fathom why it was such a pressing concern that many places in Arkansas (and other parts of the South) passed ordinances or laws that provide for a fine and legal entanglement on the basis of this fashion offense.

Because of these ordinances I am sure that all of the appliance repair people and plumbers are running out to the store to buy better fitting jeans so that they are not arrested for the type of exposure for which both professionals are well known. Mothers are now worrying about being fined for allowing their babies and toddlers to run about just wearing diapers. Young ladies are exchanging their bikinis for full-length one-piece suits from the 1920s. And those men brave enough to wear Speedo bathing suits are now considering the types of suits once made popular by Moe, Larry and Curly.

Fundamentally, the idea of dictating what kind of music or what kind of attire someone chooses is a First Amendment right. Any law or ordinance that seeks to limit either choice or expression has to demonstrate a compelling interest in order to be constitutional. While many communities across America have “noise ordinances,” and several states have motor vehicle regulations that prohibit loud music or noise being produced from a vehicle, these laws have been upheld on the basis of disturbing the peace due to the congestion of larger cities and towns.

But a town like Brinkley, or even one like Marianna, cannot claim such rationale because neither town is so congested or densely populated that a loud muffler or a loud radio could cause a significant disturbance of the peace. Like most towns across Arkansas, Brinkley and Marianna have numerous empty storefronts and abandoned businesses. In fact, some of the businesses open in these communities look like they have been abandoned even though they are open for business and are contributing to the municipal tax base. Even in the more densely populated sections of town, at least 15 to 20 feet exists between homes. The business sections of these communities are so small that the old rub about blinking twice and being through it applies. Loud music could only disturb the armadillos, mosquitoes and the abundance of toads living in these parts of Arkansas. There is no compelling interest to justify passing and enforcing such ordinances and laws against loud music.

The possibility of a noise nuisance caused by a radio or a muffler in either town (or most towns in Arkansas) is remote, especially in comparison with other noise nuisances in the area. The biggest noise nuisance in either of these towns would more likely come from the trucking traffic on the nearby highways or the numerous tractors and farming equipment being used regularly. Yet, there is little effort being made to erect noise suppression walls along I-40, Route 1, or US 70. No one is suggesting fines for the farm equipment and tractor noises that awaken most of us as early as 5:00 AM. What is disturbing in these towns is the utter disregard for the US Constitution, the First Amendment and the Constitution of Arkansas.

The same First Amendment issue is present in regard to ordinances and laws against wearing trousers down low enough to expose undergarments. While I may agree that such fashion is unsightly, impractical and, in many cases, offensive, it is not obscene, profane or immoral. There are no “private parts” being exposed and there is no sexual connotation to this form of expression. As an educator, I can see the compelling interest for a school to enforce a dress code that prohibits such choices during school hours on school premises. However a person chooses to dress in public, absent of a compelling interest or rationale against such attire and expression, is entirely a matter of choice and taste. In the case of teenagers, it should be left as a matter between themselves, their peers and their parents. While it is important to convey the idea that “first impressions are lasting impressions” and that choice of attire can convey attitudes and messages about the person, making these issues a matter of law is overkill and an unconstitutional overreach for power. But this unconstitutional status seems to be ignored in Arkansas.

But there it is… the issue is power, not righteousness or correction of our youth. Here, in Arkansas there is a permeating notion that things have to be dictated to others. This notion has been accepted as a normal part of life for everyone living in Arkansas. But the reality of this notion is control and exercise of power. There is a subtle, yet permeating, manipulation of culture toward submission, hopelessness and helplessness that overpowers all but the very wealthy or very powerful in the state. My “spidey senses” tell me that this is the profound influence of the Christian Right dictating moral standards to the communities at-large in regard to these attire and noise ordinances.

Throughout Arkansas, workers are given a “take it or leave it” ultimatum by practically every employer, including the state and its municipal entities. The notion of equal employment opportunities is a formality that is expressed on paper and in job ads, but is largely ignored in the workplace. But because jobs are so few and far between, workers tolerate the oppression and suppression, just being thankful they have income. The lack of economic and vocational opportunity is the underlying justification for allowing oppression, discrimination, hardship and hatred to be the norm experienced by a large number of Arkansans.

Equal housing opportunities in Arkansas appears to be dealt with in much the same way as equal employment rights and labor relations. Housing in Arkansas is atrocious in terms of quality and quantity. Anyone visiting Arkansas can see this as fact just by looking at the disrepair of so many homes, including housing projects operated by municipalities. Then, too, the number of abandoned homes, shops and buildings along the roads—in the countryside and within municipal boundaries—illustrate the status of housing in Arkansas. Unlike so many other states, housing reforms, affordable housing starts and housing assistance are substandard. The contrasts between those that can afford decent housing and those that cannot are illustrated by a mere drive through the countryside and the towns in general. Myself, I managed to document it in a pictorial essay that points to houses built to the nines located next to abandoned mobile homes, dilapidated shacks that once served as homes, and “disasters waiting to happen” homes still occupied by families… not to mention the number of Arkansas families living quite literally in the midst of “Hillbilly havens” (junk and scrap metals) littering their lawns and backyards.

Municipal, county and state services are offered in a manner that is confusing, poorly coordinated, poorly managed and ineffective. Social services, health services and other services that are supposed to “promote the general welfare” (as required from both the US and Arkansas Constitutions) are designed and delivered in a manner that defies logic. Even getting a vehicle registered in this state seems to be infested with barriers to the process. Even the “free” and “affordable” services offered by the “Health Units” located in each county are neither free or affordable by comparable standards.

But I have not read much in the newspapers, or seen much on television news broadcasts, about work being done to change any of these realities. I see and read a lot about politicians getting their names in print or on the air, but not much is being done to genuinely address the social problems existing in the state. As an educator seeking licensure in Arkansas by way of reciprocity I have had to study the history of Arkansas, including its politics and laws. After studying much history and many state laws, it seems that this entrenched dynamics of control, manipulation and power have been the case for over 100 years. There have been a few moments in that history that have spoken to change, but none of those efforts have actually achieved any genuine change. The reason for this failure to change is that the dynamics of political power have not been the focus of such reform efforts. Every effort of reform in Arkansas has been preceded and followed by periods of political bargain hunting, corruption and manipulation that has either allowed backsliding, undoing or circumvention of all the past and present reform efforts.

Right now there are a lot of “Bible-thumping” ultraconservatives moving the political currents of Arkansas. Most of them are wearing Democrat garb, but are truly Republican in nature. These wolves in sheep’s clothing are kowtowing to the few big business interests that exist in Arkansas based on the rationale that is the bedrock of the Republican party: big business is how America works. But the reality of big business in Arkansas is that almost none of our big business is owned or operated by Arkansans. We have a lot of farms that grow wheat, soy beans, rice and cotton, but the market for these agricultural products is controlled by big businesses that have very little contact with, and very little concern for, Arkansas or our citizens. Mostly what we have in Arkansas is a lot of small to medium businesses, and most of that is connected to our agricultural base. We have some business in terms of tourism and vacations, but that is largely pocketed in places like Hot Springs or the outdoor nature and sporting sites. In any case, the success of most of our small and medium business interests is tied to bigger corporations, most of which are foreign to Arkansas and the interests of our citizens.

Education remains largely a second thought among Arkansas leaders, despite the recent and historical legal issues that have overwhelmingly been attached to these matters. School performance and student achievement are still measured according to metrics that are largely outdated, inappropriate and lack a national and international comparison or focus. Obtaining a teaching credential is a tedious chore and is wrought with obstacles and delays. Obtaining a teaching position is equally tedious and arduous. The salaries for teachers are higher than most jobs available in Arkansas, but are way behind in terms of parity with the vast majority of states, especially those on the east and west coasts. The capacity of a teacher to educate is stringently limited by the antiquated and oppressive policies and practices of school boards that are more concerned with control, authority, manipulation and power than they are of educating our children to be informed, able to critically examine issues and competitive in the larger context of our nation and the global realities of the workplace.

If a high-paying job were to be available, candidates from Arkansas schools would have little chance of competing based on their education alone. Unfortunately, from a precursory perspective, the same can be said for many graduates of Arkansas colleges and universities. Even more unfortunate is that the faculty of our schools and institutions of higher education are held at bay when trying to assert and effect change. While this is true in practically every US school district to some extent, the reality of these dynamics in Arkansas are as oppressive as the humidity and heat of middle August.

Even more concerning is the spiritual oppression in Arkansas. While there once was a spiritual basis for justice in Arkansas, especially during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement, there is now a spiritual stench and stagnation that assaults the sensibilities of anyone with a real notion of Christianity, God and Justice. While there is a church on every corner, there is very little justice, healing, loving and caring manifesting in the way things are being done in Arkansas. The laws in this state do very little to protect the consumer, especially those consumers that need the most protection: the elderly, the very young, the inexperienced, the uneducated and the poorest among us. It appears that there has been a general abandonment of the principle of community taught by Christ, St. Paul and other notables in the history of the faith.

Where are our church leaders when it comes to speaking out for justice for workers? Where is the spiritual voice for justice and fairness in regard to housing? Where are our Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religious voices for consumer fairness? Why aren’t we standing up for our basic rights and principles—all of which are fundamentally spiritual in nature—for government in Arkansas? Where is the spiritual sense of love and caring for the poor? Where are the voices advocating for better treatment of prisoners (which is an issue that has a long history in Arkansas) and fairness in the process? Why aren’t our spiritual principles and beliefs calling for more treatment of addiction rather than incarceration (the number of people incarcerated for drug-related crimes is very high)? Where is the religiously-motivated call for loving our neighbors and offering our enemies hope and light through our example?

Landlords, shopkeepers and grocers have better protections than do consumers. A brief and cursory review of landlord-tenant laws and cases shows an overwhelming bias toward the landowner and almost a complete disregard for the rights of tenants. A tenant in Arkansas remains much like the sharecroppers that developed in the Post-Civil War Era: completely under the thumb of the landowner. If a landlord-tenant issue does make it to court, there is little hope for any tenant issues prevailing. Of course, the laws governing the sale and transfer of real property are also oppressive, confusing and significantly biased in favor of big business groups like the realtors, the banks and the tax man. Although Arkansas land is cheap by comparison to most of the US, the rules and laws here make it difficult to process a land transaction unless there is a lawyer, a realtor, a bank and the tax man getting their piece of the action. Quite frankly, it would be simpler if the mafia were making the rules for land ownership and purchases.

Health inspections of food service establishments are lacking, if not in actual inspection, definitively in effectiveness. I have yet to eat at a restaurant in Arkansas that has not had three or four obvious health and sanitation problems, including at several Sonic drive-ins. I have seen flies in kitchens, food service steam tables that were not sufficiently hot or cold, bathrooms that were not clean (and no reminders for employees to wash after use) or in good repair, and cross-contamination of raw, partially cooked and cooked foods at buffet tables and in kitchens. One might think I am talking about roadside restaurants operated in a “mom and pop” manner, but I am discussing chains like Burger King, KFC, Sizzler, Sonic, etc., as well as the “mom and pop” operations. But since there is little enforcement, these folks can operate in any manner they desire, risking the health—and possibly the lives—of Arkansans and our visitors.

Our libraries are xenophobic, provincial, exclusive and poorly supplied… and most are mismanaged. Our access to the Internet and digital information resources are so far behind the times that nations like India can be used to compare Arkansas’s ability to bring the Internet into rural areas. My own experience in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia suggests that those two nations—both controlled by control-focused ruling families rather than a democratic government—are significantly ahead of Arkansas in terms of the “information superhighway.”

On the bright side of things, Arkansas has, and has always had, great potential. There are significant natural resources throughout the state. Nature conservancy is a priority for many Arkansans. The tourism industry of Arkansas has primarily focused on camping, nature, hunting and fishing. The topography and geography of the state is significantly varied, having five major topographical regions. There are numerous waterways and water resources. There is enough flatland and sunny days that we could be generating solar energy in quantities that could be exported and shared (at a profit).

We could develop more environmentally-friendly tools for irrigation with the use of solar generation and better water reclamation. We have economic advantages over other states, including a lower cost of living standard, a lot of wide-open spaces, and readily available real estate for development. We could improve our schools and improve the attractiveness of our available labor pool as well. And none of our laws are so screwed up that we could not fix what needs to be done to make our government, economy and culture more attractive to businesses and new immigration.

But history speaks to the recognition of the potential in and for Arkansas, all of which has been touted and documented but never fulfilled. A few well-chosen families and business interests (i.e. Wal-Mart) have managed to tap the potential in Arkansas, but the ultraconservative politics and politicians have long stood in the way of progress, equality, equal access and opportunity, justice and the fulfillment of the potential in and for Arkansas. A very sad reality indeed.

Incompetence, Lies & Screwing Over Those That Oppose Tyranny

2007-05-20T12:16:00.001-07:00

Over the last few days we have heard that AG "Gonzo" Gonzales, while serving as a top aid to President Bush, had to race to the hospital bed of then AG John Ashcroft to attempt an end run around the Acting Attorney General's refusal to sign off on the NSA spying programs. It appears, from these recent reports, that Ashcroft and his Deputy Attorney General had the gumption to read the Constitution and point out the numerous flaws in the NSA domestic spying game Bush, Meiers and Gonzales had in mind.

But the most interesting part is that Gonzo had the audacity to appear before Congress and state, for the record, that there was no dissent as to the legality of the NSA spying programs. Well, we can now understand why Gonzo has appeared before Congress on numerous occasions without the benefit of being sworn in before testifying: Gonzo wanted to avoid charges of perjury. But Gonzo still violated the law. Presenting false evidence and statements before Congress, even without the benefit of being sworn in, is still a crime in this nation. It is cause for his removal from office through impeachment, as well as cause for his resignation. We can only hope that Bush, Cheney and Gonzales have the political savvy to recognize that Gonzo is done as the AG and has no credibility for remaining in office. Everyone now knows that he is a liar and an incompetent liar at that. We can only hope that he will never hold a high office or practice law again.

But this most recent revelation--on the part of Gonzales and on the part of the White House--only illustrates the utter contempt these folks have for our laws, our form of government, our basic values and our people. It further illustrates how incompetent these folks are, not only at running our government in an ethical and responsible manner, but at keeping their own flaws, secret operations and outright lies from surfacing. One has to wonder how they can claim the secrecy and extension of powers surrounding our national security issues if they can't even keep their own political secrets.

I was born in the tail end of the Eisenhower administration and have lived to see Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (Sr.), Clinton and Bush (Dubya) occupy the the Oval Office.

Kennedy had his women on the side and supposedly had connections to the mob and Hollywood through his relative, Peter Lawford and the Rat Pack. The entire Marilyn Monroe thing is still a legend in both Washington and Hollywood (which is why we had Anna Nocole and have Gwen Stefani as media icons). But Kennedy knew how to stand on principle now and then, and managed most of our governmental affairs with a sense of righteousness, ethics and leadership, despite his flaws. My own opinion is that he was killed because of his principles in government and his refusal to compromise on the larger issues.

Johnson screwed up the entire approach to handling the Vietnam War. His "good old boy" approach to matters and his behind the scenes muscling on Capitol Hill did not cover up the fact that he had violated his word, our laws, the safety of our troops and our principles. Johnson did a lot of good through his Great Society campaign, including the reforms regarding spending and administration of welfare and education. He also had the decency to recognize that he was the wrong man for the office and announced his intention not to seek re-election. LBJ knew how to read the handwriting on the walls.

Nixon, however, was one of the most power-hungry bastards we ever had in office up to his day. He was a nasty politician that believed in smear campaigns going all the way back to the McCarthy Era and the "red scare" tactics of the 1950s. His reputation for throwing temper tantrums and voicing his disdain for the media was well established in his now infamous "Checkers Speech" (c.a. 1952) where he danced around the issues of campaign finance and election improprieties... an issue that would later reveal itself is the Watergate Scandal and Nixon's resignation in disgrace. Despite being a crooked politician that did not adhere to our laws, Nixon proved himself to be genuinely likable, but significantly incompetent and flawed as a human being and as a leader. Before he died he managed to re-invent himself as a humane leader and political figure. But the reality of history tells us that he was prone to ignoring the Constitution in not only regards to campaign and election laws, but in using government resources to spy on innocent Americans. It is because Nixon was incompetent at hiding these secret spying measures--much of which had been practiced back to the later days of FDR--that we ended up with the the Church Committee, Privacy Act of 1974, FISA, FOIA, and several other laws that were supposed to restrict the way in which the US government could use its intelligence gathering powers (not authority--POWERS).

Jerry Ford was a likable man with a sense of doing right, but in a backwards manner. He was a Washington insider that was essentially kept on the outside of the real deals. His major faux pas while in office was undermining our laws by pardoning Nixon before he was even charged with a crime. Ford claimed that he felt it necessary to heal the nation from the rift created by Watergate. But if this pardon had never been issued we might have learned more about how deep the disregard of our Constitution went into our government and our Congress might have passed more stringent laws regarding our privacy... many of which might have impacted the current gang of fascist thugs occupying the White House and the Executive Branch. I honestly believe letting Nixon off the hook damaged our ability to prevent run-away administrations like the current Bush gang. But Ford wasn't the worst president we've ever had, and most of his accomplishments were quiet, achieved without a lot of fanfare. He was however an economic boob. His Whip Inflation Now (WIN) campaign was a "feel good do nothing" approach to dealing with the rising prices of gas, manufacturing, imports and the loss of American jobs as a result of corporate mismanagement and globalization. Then again, it was during the Nixon days that the first oil embargo and manipulation of our economy by OPEC (led by the Saudis, of course) occurred and threw our lives into turmoil. (I once again advocate that the uninformed read Steven Emerson's "The American House of Saud" to understand how we are still tied to these manipulative bastards from the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia.) The roots of the invasion of Iraq are found in 1973.

Carter has proven a better leader out of office than when he was president. He has demonstrated courage and leadership as a peace envoy, going places where US officials could not venture and taking steps that politically ambitious folks dared not to approach. But while in office Jimmy Carter did not play the game of insider politics very well. He caused a lot of ruckus between factions in Congress and was opposed by the GOP leadership every chance they got. Many of his more humane approaches to government, leadership, domestic policies and international affairs were undermined by the GOP. This was confirmed when the Iranian-held hostages were released, very conveniently and auspiciously, on the day of Reagan's inauguration. At the time many pundits and analysts pointed to the fear of political and military reprisals against Iran under Reagan's "cowboy" approach as the reason the hostages were released. These same pundits and analysts pointed to Carter's impotence in international affairs as the basis for hostages being taken in the first place. But history is a better judge than were the pundits and analysts, proving that Reagan and company had laid a foundation for a covert relationship with Iranian "revolutionaries" that would eventually lead to an outright disregard of our laws and Constitution by Reagan and his administration. Carter was not the most effective president we've ever had, but he was at least one of the most respectable persons that held the office in the 20th century. Unfortunately, the legacy we are left with after Carter is that a moral, humane person cannot be an effective president of our nation... a legacy I reject as being a falsehood promoted by the greed and corruption that remains the mainstay of activity in Washington DC.

Reagan, on the other hand, was a Teflon buffoon. He could say anything, propose anything, no matter how outrageous, and get a nod from the press and the general public. He was dubbed the "Great Communicator," but was actually the "Great Senility." He was noted for falling asleep during meetings, asking questions that were way off topic, contradicting himself on many occasions, and for allowing Nancy to run things when she had no authority or business being involved. He led us to invade Grenada, launch attacks on Qaddafi and Libya, and brought us back to the Cold War with a passion. He was held in check by a few well-placed leaders, but was also surrounded by other buffoons like Casper Weinberger. His administration, and the subsequent Bush administration, became the breeding grounds for fascists that came to power (or are now in power), including, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Rove, Alito, Thomas, Chertoff, Card, Rice, O'Neill, Snow, Gates, Chao, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Mueller and so many others that were part of the Reagan and Bush (Sr) administrations. Interestingly enough, many of these folks, as well as advisers employed by Dubya, were involved or have ties to the Nixon White House. But the deals with Iran that allowed the release of our embassy personnel held hostage by the theocratic fascists of the Khomeini regime eventually led to the unlawful and unconstitutional activities of the Iran-Contra Affairs which involved the US government in illegal sales and transfer of weapons, drugs and money to shady characters, leaders and nations throughout the world. Reagan's approach to economics (supply-side economics, trickle-down economics, "Reaganomics") was nothing less than a surrender of our economy to corporatism, globalism and fascism that undermines the freedoms and rights of individuals, municipalities, states and regions in favor of large profiteering corporations, power-brokers, politicians and hides behind the rhetoric and apparent benevolence of tax-cutting policies. It is an oddly ironic consequence that Reagonomics has only benefited the extremely wealthy, powerful or connected while undermining the Middle Class and relegating the poor to a status of underclass in our society.

George H. W. Bush is best summed up in the words of several friends from Spain whom I met while attending graduate school at St. Louis University: "Why did the people of the United States elect the former head of your secret police (CIA) to be president?" My Spanish friends could not understand this succession at all. In their view, the usefulness of the CIA was without question, but allowing a "secret policeman" to become a national leader was just plain stupid. Given that these folks lived under the rule of Franco, I think they knew what they were talking about. But this Bush was not only involved in the Iran-Contra Affairs, but was so negligent in terms of serving the most needy among us. During his second inauguration celebration there were literally thousands of homeless people out in the cold and hungry just feet away from where he was hosting dinners that cost $1500 to $4000 a plate. His administration's performance in terms of helping the poor is horrific, with deliberate efforts toward undermining the McKinney Act provisions for using surplus federal property for the homeless, deliberate efforts to undermine education funding for inner cities, and a deliberate effort to spread USDA money to agro-businesses rather than family-run farms. This Bush managed to bypass any real criticism for his neglect of our needs by calling for more volunteerism (all the while cutting the tax burden on the top 10% of the wealthiest among us) under the "Thousand Points of Light" approach. This Bush continued the Reaganomics of his predecessor and kowtowed to Big Business even more than Reagan. Like so many others with fascist and elitist tendencies within the GOP, this Bush had ties to the Nixon White House and, indirectly, the Watergate Scandals. His worst contribution to American politics is his son, the current president. One has to wonder what values were taught in the Bush household that could produce the likes of Dubya. It must also be noted that this Bush provided pardons for many that were intimately involved in the Iran-Contra Affairs.

Bill Clinton was a buffoon of a different sort. Because Slick Willie couldn't keep his Lil' Willie in his pants he led this nation into a decline of political debate the likes of which hadn't been seen since before the Civil War. We were so busy with whether or not Wild Bill was sexually immoral with Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers or so many others that have yet to surface. We managed to impeach Slick Willie because he lied about having sex with Lewinsky to save his wife, his daughter and himself embarrassment regarding his sexual indiscretions and marital infidelities. But when we examine the Clinton administration from a historical perspective, we find he was a good president that did good things for our country. With the exception of NAFTA and DMCA (both of which were overwhelmingly supported by the GOP), the vast majority of what Clinton accomplished in the White House was effective, good for America and good for the Middle Class and the poorest among us. NAFTA hurt many small businesses, unions, workers, the entire Middle Class and migrant workers on the whole. The DMCA was a good idea that went to far in favor of the big businesses that already had control over ideas and expressions, giving away too much of the "fair use doctrine" that allowed ordinary folks to use intellectual property in a fair manner. But the entire process of impeachment was unfair. I am not saying it was not legitimate, just unfair. The proof of its unfairness is in the fact that Slick Willie got impeached for lying about a blow job in the Oval Office while Dubya has sent thousands to their death based on outright lies and manipulations, spied on Americans illegally, usurped powers he is not entitled to under our Constitution, and has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" that far exceed the immorality offered by Bill Clinton.

Of course, we now have Dubya and his gang of fascist thugs running things. I have already written about how Dubya and his gang have fulfilled all the requirements for being identified as fascist as identified by Dr. Lawrence Britt. So I do not have to address his many failings in specific once again. But the latest scandal involving Gonzo Gonzales's lies before Congress only illustrates the continued legacy of the worst presidential administration in the history of the United States of America. It also illustrates levels of deceit, manipulation and incompetence that has been tolerated for far too long. It is well past time for impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales and anyone else that has stood on his side of the political and ideological spectrum. The addition of the Wolfowitz scandal at the World Bank is just another indicator of the incompetence, fascism, elitism (undeserved), mismanagement, cronyism and cause for impeachment coming out of the Oval Office.

REFERENCES:

Wolfowitz Resigns, Ending Long Fight at World Bank

Bush Intervened in Dispute Over N.S.A. Eavesdropping

An Arkansas Apology

2007-05-17T20:23:00.000-07:00

I have to apologize to the few faithful readers that have been seeking out my "voice" over the last few weeks. I took another trip to Arkansas to seek out job opportunities. It seems that states (like Arkansas) that really need competent teachers are willing to recognize the licensure offered by other states, even if they got it originally through an alternative certification route. Arkansas, unlike Indiana and several other states where I have lived recently, has agreed to provide me with reciprocity for my Massachusetts credentials.

While down that way I again noticed that life is a lot different. My shock was evoked when my wife's uncle declared that veterans of the US military that were not drafted should not be entitled to health care (and other) benefits because it causes his tax bill to rise. He continued this line of argument by referencing the retirement pension a relative receives after serving over 20 years on active duty because this relative was now in prison for murder. I reproached him on both of these issues, but he is a bit of a bully, believing that if he raises his voice he will win the argument. But he got my dander up and I did not back down. I pointed out that his facts were erroneous.

While today's military is a voluntary organization, the pay scale is way off. Active duty personnel are often called to be on duty for 24-48 hours without relieve or proper rest. They sleep in less than optimum conditions, even when they are housed on base in a BEQ or barracks. The salary of an electronics technician in the military is about 30-60% lower than that of a comparable civilian position and the level of knowledge and expertise required in the military is significantly higher than that of a civilian. Despite this, that very same veteran (upon release from active duty) will have greater difficulty obtaining a job than a graduate of an associate degree electronics program. The same is true of medics and corpsmen in the services. Most of these service members will be trained to do IVs, diagnostics, minor surgery, assist with major surgery, perform x-rays, provide advanced nursing care, do lab procedures, etc... but will not be allowed to sit for even a phlebotomy technician exam once released from service in most states. My own military training as a Navy Hospital Corpsman and an Army (National Guard - 91C)--with advanced training in psychiatric care, substance abuse counseling, psychometrics, laboratory procedures, blood component therapy, IV therapies, minor surgery, etc.--has been ignored, dismissed or belittled... despite the fact that I am still a better nurse, diagnostician, counselor and care provider than many who will graduate from BSN and MS programs in the next few weeks... and I have proof of this to support my claims.

But more importantly, every day on active duty, whether in peace time or during conflicts, presents dangers that most civilian jobs do not offer. Just as steel workers (like my father-in-law) are deserving of higher pay and benefits for the dangers they face, our military personnel are deserving of better pay and working conditions... and they do not get any of these just desserts. But they do get a guarantee of medical care for life (which our government does not always fulfill) and a few other benefits--many of which have been eroded over the years--as a way of honoring the sacrifice and service.

As for the relative that committed murder and is probably going to be incarcerated for the remainder of his life, if not sentenced to death, he earned the pension. The benefit of that pension is in no way connected to the criminal deeds. There is no reasonable cause to sever the pension and the arguments of my wife's uncle are based on a foundation of punishing those that are already suffering... something that explains why he votes for Republicans even though the policies and practices supported by the GOP undermine his standing as an independent contractor and business person.

In any event, I will soon be moving to Arkansas, where I expect to raise some political hell, if not some eyebrows. But I worry about being able to keep my job while expressing my ideas and views. In any case, it will be interesting.

The Passing Of An Error...er, Era

2007-05-17T19:33:00.000-07:00

Jerry Falwell's Nasty Contributions to American Political Life

Jerry Falwell began the process of ultra-conservative members of the Christian community--dare I say the ultra-conservative Baptists--involving themselves in the political process. Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jim Baker, Charles Colson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye and a few others followed suit, each forming their own version of a televangelist ministry and media arm for reaching out to those who don't want to think for themselves, don't want to be Americans, but do want to be led by theocratic ideologues and demagogues and do want to turn this nation into a pseudo-democracy based on an ultra-conservative--and dare I say absolutely incorrect and errant--version of Christianity.

What Falwell and those other folks want is a version of America where only their understanding of Christianity is allowed, only their sectarian views are valid, and only their version of the pursuit of happiness is reliable, regardless of what the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the various state constitutions, or even the Bible states is valid. What tickles my hypocrisy bone is the fact that these folks have a "pick and choose" approach to history, science, law, religion and the Bible. Ignoring the parts of the Scriptures that lead us to the teachings of Christ--love, compassion, empathy, forgiveness, sacrifice, community, acceptance of others, communication (effective communication), tolerance of others, etc.--from both the Old and New Testaments, they choose only the parts that suit their purpose and ideology. Ignoring the true history of our nation, they make a case for "family values" that are artificial and not even ideal, with the father of the family dictating the rules and procedures, even if he hasn't the psychological, sociological, interpersonal, intrapersonal, emotional or vocational aptitudes, attitudes, skills or abilities to be the leader of a family. The woman of the home MUST take a back seat to the husband's will and leadership, even if he has established a pattern of failure, wrong-headedness, stubborn bull-headedness, etc.

All the while these folks have ignored the over three hundred years of alcohol abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse, child labor abuse, incest and family member rape, economic hardship caused by political and workplace exploitation (often supported by their party of choice), etc., that have defined the American family since before the American Revolution. These folks use nostalgia and propaganda to misdirect our attention to the details of our lives. They use a hypnotic form of ministry--complete with music, false happiness and pretense--to convince people that life is wonderful no matter what load of crap is dumped into our lives.

There is a certain level of psychological brainwashing that goes along with being this type of Christian. There is a surrender to "God's will" in the form of the minister, preacher, reverend or iconic figure of the day. This brainwashing reaches into the pocketbooks of millions of people who contribute their hard earned dollars for "Christian projects" that are not really doing much good, but convert many from the deepest regions of third world nations to their version of Christianity. But Christ warned us of many false prophets and provided us a metric by which we can judge the truth of matters: the fruit they bear.

Have Falwell, Robertson, Roberts, Jones, LaHaye, Hinn, Baker, or any of the others done anything that has improved the world? The nation? The state in which they lived? The community in which they lived? Mind you, I am not talking about making the lives of their congregation better. Christ gave us the example of the father not giving his child a serpent when asked for a fish, or a stone when asked for bread. But I am talking about the whole of the community... the whole of the state... the whole of the nation... the whole of the world. Changing the world is the objective of true Christianity. It is not merely competing for the funds of contributors for the operation of the church and its "ministries," but for actually feeding the poor and helping them to learn how to feed themselves... whether they convert to Christianity or not. It is not merely praying for world betterment, but bearing the burden of producing change for the better.

But Falwell, et al, do not practice the Christianity offered by Jesus. They do not even practice the Christianity preached by Paul and spread throughout the Roman Empire. Instead, each of these people have offered an ego-feeding frenzy that made them rich beyond the means of many of their "flocks" and sought power over not just their converts and parishioners, but over the lives of others in terms of decisions involving medicine (i.e. abortion, stem cells), science (creationism and its afterbirth, intelligent design), family life and intimacy (seeking laws against unwed mothers [including punitive welfare policies], gays, divorced people, etc.), and, ultimately, trying to reduce, restrict and erode the authority of the Constitution and the rights therein.

The passing of any human being is a saddening event, regardless of the religious beliefs held (or not held). I honestly feel for Falwell's family and friends. But I am rejoicing that his voice is no longer expressing the hateful, discriminatory, un-Christian and un-American ideology he stood for most of his life. But I have to admit that I am wondering what kind of greeting and reception Jerry got at the gates of heaven... and whether or not Jerry was surprised at the list of his sins, the people that really are in heaven (i.e. gays, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc.), or the genuine forgiveness that is offered.

Justice & Liberty Given The Cold Shoulder

2007-05-02T03:10:00.000-07:00

The right to file a grievance and seek justice from our courts is being severely limited by the Bush administration and the Supreme Court. There are several steps--more like nails in the coffin of civil liberties--that are being taken to block the exercise of civil liberties and human rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The first step is the call and effort by the Bush administration to restrict lawyers representing the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay from actually meeting with their clients except when approved and supervised by the government. In addition to restricting communication and access to their clients, the government is seeking to restrict access to evidence against their clients.

There is a fundamental problem in this approach in that it is a clear violation of the very foundations of our Constitution, our laws and the principles behind them, and the treaties we have signed supporting human rights and liberty. This approach undermines our standing in the international community, our efforts toward liberating Afghanistan and our supposed rationale for invading and occupying Iraq, and makes us war criminals.

In fact, I make the claim that our sitting by and watching this occur without a collective and total outcry against such violations of principle and justice makes every American a war criminal in the same way that every German that stood by and watched Hitler and his fascists commit similar crimes became responsible for their crimes against humanity. However, there is a difference. The Germans take responsibility for their culpability by standing up against such things today while we are idly standing by and letting this crap happen. But, just like the erosion of rights that occurred under Hitler, this erosion of liberty will sooner or later be broadly applied to us. Already we have seen the erosion of civil liberties under the USA Patriot Act, the warrantless spying programs, the unlawful surrender of private transaction records, etc.

But as soon as there is a precedent for denying access to a lawyer and the rights to see the evidence against an accused, it can--and will--be used to justify doing the same against US citizens. We must remember that our entire legal system is subject to the principle of "stare decisis," meaning that previous decisions (precedent) lay the foundation for current situations.

Court Asked to Limit Lawyers at Guantánamo

The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to impose tighter restrictions on the hundreds of lawyers who represent detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the request has become a central issue in a new legal battle over the administration’s detention policies.

Saying that visits by civilian lawyers and attorney-client mail have caused “intractable problems and threats to security at Guantánamo,” a Justice Department filing proposes new limits on the lawyers’ contact with their clients and access to evidence in their cases that would replace more expansive rules that have governed them since they began visiting Guantánamo detainees in large numbers in 2004.

The filing says the lawyers have caused unrest among the detainees and have improperly served as a conduit to the news media, assertions that have drawn angry responses from some of the lawyers.

The only risk to security at Gitmo is coming from the fact that the prisoners being held are realizing that they may indeed have rights and are acting upon those rights. They are demanding that the case against them be proven by applying writs of habeas corpus and demanding a probable cause hearing. Of course, if the US government actually had a case against the vast majority of those being held the proposition of probable cause and habeas corpus would not present a problem. But, given the fact that out of all the hundreds of prisoners that have been released from Gitmo, only a handful--no more than six--have been held accountable by the governments to which they were released. The reason they were not held accountable is simply because there was no evidence that they had done anything wrong.

The dispute is the latest and perhaps the most significant clash over the role of lawyers for the detainees. “There is no right on the part of counsel to access to detained aliens on a secure military base in a foreign country,” the Justice Department filing argued.

This is a bogus argument because all military bases, whether leased or permanently ceded to the US, are considered US soil for the purposes of military and civilian laws. This point has been made and set in precedent by the fact that military personnel serving on bases in foreign nations that are accused of a crime are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Civilians serving on a military base on foreign soil are subject to US laws while on base and the laws of the host nation while off base.

The argument being presented is self-serving and arbitrary, capriciously applied to promote an "ends justifying the means" approach that undermines, circumvents and erodes not only the rights and liberties of those being imprisoned at Gitmo and other places operated by the Bush administration, but our rights and liberties as well.

Under the proposal, filed this month in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the government would limit lawyers to three visits with an existing client at Guantánamo; there is now no limit. It would permit only a single visit with a detainee to have him authorize a lawyer to handle his case. And it would permit a team of intelligence officers and military lawyers not involved in a detainee’s case to read mail sent to him by his lawyer.

If we allow this to happen, we are setting ourselves up for the same approach in our criminal processes in our daily lives. We are saying that any accusation--a mere accusation--can be prosecuted without a full and forceful legal challenge to the case. We are saying that finger-pointing can become the sole reason for imprisonment, harsh treatment, indefinite detainment, and runaway prosecution.

The proposal would also reverse existing rules to permit government officials, on their own, to deny the lawyers access to secret evidence used by military panels to determine that their clients were enemy combatants.

Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all accused persons have a fundamental and inviolate right to see and challenge the evidence being used against them. Our own Bill of Rights guarantees the right to confront the evidence being used against anyone accused of a crime or unjust act. If we allow this we are allowing a runaway government to permanently erode our own rights.

Many of the lawyers say the restrictions would make it impossible to represent their clients, or even to convince wary detainees — in a single visit — that they were really lawyers, rather than interrogators.

Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, a lawyer who has helped to coordinate strategy for the detainees, said the government was trying to disrupt relationships between the lawyers and their clients and to stop the flow of public information about Guantánamo, which he described as a “legal black hole” before the courts permitted access for the lawyers in 2004.

“These rules,” Mr. Hafetz said, “are an effort to restore Guantánamo to its prior status as a legal black hole.”

Indeed, that is exactly what the goal of this effort by the government: disrupting the relationship and communication between the lawyers and the accused. By doing so, they restore absolute control over the hearts, minds and bodies of those being imprisoned, allowing outright war crimes and crimes against humanity to continue without scrutiny, condemnation or redress. While many may criticize my words and statement that the US is indeed committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, I make the assertion based upon the findings of the Nuremberg trials.

The Nuremberg trials established that merely detaining people without lawful justification--proven in accordance with standards and precedents of international law--was a crime against humanity. Denying a person the right to redress of grievances through due process was, and is, a crime against humanity. Capturing and detaining (imprisoning) people indefinitely, without proper charges and due process, is a crime against humanity. Capturing these people in an area under military jurisdiction and control, and detaining them without provable cause and due process, is a war crime, as was illustrated in cases prosecuted against Gestapo and SS commands, as well as the operators of the concentration camps. We need to remember that the cases against the German commanders running the concentration camps were not based on the maltreatment of their prisoners alone. Indeed, the prosecution of these commanders included charges for just maintaining these camps without cause, justification or due process and redress.

The dispute comes in a case in which detainees are challenging decisions by military panels that they were properly held as enemy combatants. The Justice Department’s proposed rules could apply to similar cases that lawyers say are likely to eventually involve as many as 300 of the roughly 385 detainees now held at Guantánamo.

By stating that these folks are "enemy combatants, the US government is obligated to provide for rights under the Geneva convention. By employing a military tribunal to prosecute these prisoners, the right to be represented by a lawyer is not only an obligation to be assured by the US government, but the right includes allowing an international court to oversee these proceedings. But the Bush gang of fascist thugs want to cut and weave the law in their own fashion, avoiding any requirements that they adhere to established rights, precedents and principles that might actually reveal the bogus nature of their actions.

But the Supreme Court has taken a step to enable the dysfunction of the Bush administration, proving that ultra-conservative bias and fascism exist on the bench of our highest court.

Supreme Court Rejects Guantanamo Military Commissions Case

The US Supreme Court Monday declined to hear a lawsuit brought by two Guantanamo Bay detainees challenging the legality of their military commissions. In Hamdan v. Gates and Khadr v. Bush, 06-1169, Yemeni Salim Ahmed Hamdan and Canadian Omar Khadr sought to challenge the constitutionality of Congress' decision to deny habeas challenges by suspected terrorists under the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In early April, the Court declined to hear another case brought by other Guantanamo detainees on whether those prisoners could challenge their detention in US federal court.

Last year the Supreme Court ruled that President Bush's military commission system violated US and international law in a previous lawsuit filed by Hamdan, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Subsequently, the Bush administration proposed the current law restructuring the military commissions, but lawyers for Hamdan and Khadr contend that the new system is substantially similar to the old one.

REFERENCES:

DOJ Seeking Additional Restrictions on Guantanamo Lawyer-Detainee Contact

Guantanamo Detainees Ask Roberts to Suspend Habeas-Stripping Case Rejection

Lawyers Lobby US Legislators to Return Habeas Rights to Guantanamo Detainees

US, Australia 'Prepared to Throw Every Legal Principle Out the Eindow': Ex-PM

Former CIA Director Denies Use of Torture in Interrogations

Canada Government Now Says It Knew of Torture Claims by Afghan Detainees

Ex-Guantanamo Detainee Held in Morocco After Transfer

Lawyers Taking Rumsfeld War Crimes Case to Spain After German Rejection

A Law Day Unto Himself: Beyond Presidential Power, What Is Bush Upholding?

Cutback on Gitmo Visits Concerns Lawyers

NYC Bar Chides Government on Guantanamo

ABA Condemns Proposed DOJ Restrictions on Guantanamo Lawyers

Statement of ABA President Karen J. Mathis Concerning U.S. Department of Justice Petition Regarding Counsel for Guantanamo Detainees

Timeline Of Habeas Corpus Writ

ACLU Denounces Bush Administration's Efforts to Keep Lawyers out of Guantanamo

CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND 75 PRO BONO COUNSEL FOR GUANTÁNAMO DETAINEES TO MEET WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO RESTORE LEGAL RIGHTS

CCR CONDEMNS PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS ON ATTORNEY ACCESS TO CLIENTS AT GUANTÁNAMO BAY

Justice Department Proposes Vast Expansion of Domestic Surveillance

ABA CALLS ON ADMINISTRATION TO COMPLY WITH FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT IN DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

Lawyers for Guantanamo Detainees Claim Military Seized Privileged Papers

The Continuing Saga Of Eroding Worker Rights

2007-05-02T02:27:00.000-07:00

OSHA Leaves Worker Safety in Hands of Industry

OSHA was developed as a tool for making employers, especially the larger corporation employers with a long-standing record of safety violations and injuries on the job, adhere to minimum standards of safety. That is correct, OSHA seeks out the MINIMUM approach to safety. While OSHA had some teeth, other laws came into effect, including requirements that companies report risks of exposure to chemical, mechanical and biological hazards under the Right to Know principle.

But slowly and surely the rights of workers under OSHA and EEOC have been eroded to a point that now OSHA and EEOC are practically de-fanged as a useful law. Add to the recent news the fact that Congress has not fully funded the staffing of these agencies for enforcement and processing of complaints, and these laws are almost toothless. This is a damn shame because up until the last few years employers were getting really focused on workplace safety for fear of OSHA oversight and prosecution. This recent report is likely to eliminate that focus and result in the firing of numerous safety officers.

While working for a large broadband provider in Boston, I saw top executives of the company piss and moan about our safety officer enforcing rules about hearing protection, fire drills, evacuation drills, lock down drills (for violence in the workplace), insurance safety inspections, and the requirements for a first aid box in every workplace. While working for a major proprietary college system operated by a huge newspaper and media corporation, I saw a complete disregard for OSHA regulations regarding blood-borne exposures for the clinical labs where blood and other biologicals were being collected and processed by students, but exposing every worker on campus to the risks.

So, when we see this type of report, we need to send our Congress critters a message--a loud and clear message--that worker safety is not a secondary concern. We need to remember that worker safety affects families. When a worker is exposed to risks at work, there is the distinct possibilities of bringing the risk home, as was the case for those that worked in settings that exposed workers to asbestos. Even a small amount of asbestos exposure can result in asbestosis, the embedding of asbestos fibers in the lungs causing an obstructive pulmonary disease and the potential for a severe form of cancer called mesothelioma. The same was true for coal miners bringing home coal dust that not only caused black lung disease for the miners, but also the same risks for their families.

In the field of general contracting, OSHA required in the 1960s and 1970s that workers be provided fresh water and an on-site portable toilet. Prior to that requirement, many major construction corporations working on private and public projects would require workers to literally hold their water and waste until an official break and find a place to relieve themselves. What resulted was that many construction workers would relieve themselves in some excluded place on the job site, leaving human wastes as a risk for hepatitis, cholera and other diseases.

The problem with the approach described in this report is that leaving the monitoring of OSHA requirements to the employer has not been a proven approach to worker safety, as is illustrated by the very first account in the report. Employers do not want to go through the paces of OSHA requirements, especially when many of these requirements cost money and eat away at profit margins. They do not want to step through what they perceive as hoops to assure safety on the job. They do not want to hire safety specialists and enforcement officers. And they do not want to respond to worker complaints and issues, nor the law suits that could result.

Leaving the process of safety in the hands of employers without stringent oversight and the enforcement options from outside the company is just wrong. This is especially the case under the Bush administration's hands-off approach to workplace safety where OSHA has been deliberately held back from enforcement, adding newer regulation and restricting actual workplace inspections, even after a complaint has been lodged and an investigation is warranted.

Seven years ago, a Missouri doctor discovered a troubling pattern at a microwave popcorn plant in the town of Jasper. After an additive was modified to produce a more buttery taste, nine workers came down with a rare, life-threatening disease that was ravaging their lungs.

Puzzled Missouri health authorities turned to two federal agencies in Washington. Scientists at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which investigates the causes of workplace health problems, moved quickly to examine patients, inspect factories and run tests. Within months, they concluded that the workers became ill after exposure to diacetyl, a food-flavoring agent.

But the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, charged with overseeing workplace safety, reacted with far less urgency. It did not step up plant inspections or mandate safety standards for businesses, even as more workers became ill.

On Tuesday, the top official at the agency told lawmakers at a Congressional hearing that it would prepare a safety bulletin and plan to inspect a few dozen of the thousands of food plants that use the additive.

That response reflects OSHA’s practices under the Bush administration, which vowed to limit new rules and roll back what it considered cumbersome regulations that imposed unnecessary costs on businesses and consumers. Across Washington, political appointees — often former officials of the industries they now oversee — have eased regulations or weakened enforcement of rules on issues like driving hours for truckers, logging in forests and corporate mergers.

Since George W. Bush became president, OSHA has issued the fewest significant standards in its history, public health experts say. It has imposed only one major safety rule. The only significant health standard it issued was ordered by a federal court.

The agency has killed dozens of existing and proposed regulations and delayed adopting others. For example, OSHA has repeatedly identified silica dust, which can cause lung cancer, and construction site noise as health hazards that warrant new safeguards for nearly three million workers, but it has yet to require them.

“The people at OSHA have no interest in running a regulatory agency,” said Dr. David Michaels, an occupational health expert at George Washington University who has written extensively about workplace safety. “If they ever knew how to issue regulations, they’ve forgotten. The concern about protecting workers has gone out the window.”

Agency officials defend their performance, saying that workplace deaths and injuries have declined during their tenure. They have been considering new standards and revising outdated ones that were unduly burdensome on businesses, they said, adding that they have moved cautiously on new rules because those require extensive scientific and economic analysis.

Checking Off The Bush Gang Fascist Check List

2007-04-25T18:35:00.000-07:00

Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism By Dr. Lawrence Britt

Every time I write about the Bush gang I am reminded about this particular article on the 14 Characteristics of Fascism. As I review the history of our nation over the last 10 years, I see the growth of fascism fast becoming the norm for our society. The worst part of it is that we are still sleeping on the job and Congress--which was a cooperative and supportive partner in the fascism while the GOP controlled it--has done nothing to address this fascism and stop it in it's tracks. The need to stop the growth of fascism in our nation, and especially as it is being proffered by Bush and his merry men.

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

The most obvious version of this characteristic was the "Mission Accomplished" banner on board a naval vessel, with President Bush being flown in by a combat jet. But even his ordinary experiences are overly dramatized by banners, slogans and symbols. His speeches are not just filled with cliches but his arguments for remaining in Iraq and continuing with a failed strategy that illustrates the point. "Stay the course," support the troops," and "remember 9-11" are woven into every speech he has ever given in regard to the Bush Doctrine and his "war on terrorism."

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

The list for this particular characteristic is long, starting with the treatment of captives, detainees and prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. The murder, rape, torture and maltreatment of Iraqis, Afghanis, Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis is on record. Even the use of bombs to resolve issues concerning the the Taliban using remote areas of Pakistan is a violation of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The deliberate disregard of the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Accords--even though our government insists on other nations adhering to these principles and treaties--illustrates the point very well.

Then we have the apparent suspension of habeas corpus not only for the poor bastards held at Gitmo, or flying around the world under the notion of extraordinary rendition, but also against anyone arrested under an accusation of being either a terrorist or an aid to those that might be terrorists, even if there is no proof showing that the accused had any knowledge of such.

But Bush and his merry men take this a step further and insist on employing secretive measures against US citizens, preventing certain "types" and "categories" of people from flying based on ethnic origin, religious affiliation or race rather than probable cause. The warrantless surveillance programs (note the plural), the expressed plan to open mail routinely, the collection of data from corporate records, etc.--all without probable cause, due process or the right to challenge these actions--nails the coffin shut on human rights.

Then, of course, we have the extraordinary rendition programs. Flying suspects around to countries that are known for their brutal and torturous methods of interrogation and "intelligence gathering" violates NATO, the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration and our own Constitution.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

The events of 9-11 solidified our nation on an emotional level, but not a spiritual or truly patriotic level. We had every yahoo possible flying numerous flags on their cars, pickups, RV, gardens and homes--most of whom never gave the flag a second thought prior to 9-11. Most of these yahoos also displayed the flag inappropriately and disrespectfully.

The effect of this emotional method of unification was that we allowed our president and our congress to give away the very democracy that we rely upon to be free and live the way we believe all people should be free to live: under a government FOR the PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and answerable to the PEOPLE.

We have a long history of human rights abuses, starting with slavery and indentured servants; our treatment of freedmen and poor Southerners during Reconstruction; the entire process of institutionalizing discrimination against Blacks, Chinese, Catholics, Irish, "Hunkies" from Central Eastern Europe, Jews, Italians, Vietnamese, Camboadians, Chicanos and other Latinos; and ending with the current fearful discrimination of those from the Middle East or practicing the Muslim faith.

Our president, and the Congress that supported him, and those folks that continue to support him in the face of overwhelming evidence of immorality, unconstitutionality, scandals and failure to hear the will of the American people has led us into a pattern of human rights violations and blatant hypocrisy. We point the finger at other nations and groups for violating human rights, all the while we are breaking records for such abuses.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex. We have seen overwhelming growth of of this complex ever since that warning. But we have seen more growth of this complex while Republican presidents and congresses have held the reins to our government.

Under the direction of Ronald Reagan we saw what the Europeans called "Cowboy Politics" and "Cowboy Diplomacy." We saw a build up and frequent use of military power and might, as well as numerous back door deals with those that sought to improve their military standing in the world, even our own enemies of the time, trading arms for hostages.

George H.W. Bush's turn at bat was not that much different. His record of abuses and manipulation of military might and "black ops" goes back to the days when he was the Director of the CIA. Old George wrapped himself in the flag and used the military might of our nation in many ways.

But George W. Bush has outspent, over spent and allowed more fraud, waste, corruption within the military-industrial complex than any previous Commander-in Chief. He has used the attacks that occurred on 9-11 to justify an indecent and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. His commitment to the buildup and use of military force under this Bush administration has gone to extremes, even defending the continuation of a flawed and failed set of strategies beyond reason.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

The amount of homophobia that exists among the GOP, the Religious Right, the Christian Right in specific, and the efforts to place homophobic policies like the Marriage Amendment above more pressing and urgent issues (like the failed policies in Iraq) is extraordinary. The effort to control the interpersonal relationships of individuals willing to commit to each other in emotional, physical, spiritual and economic terms is contrary to the provisions of the First Amendment that provides for free association without any limits except those that are designed to overthrow the government, conspire to spy for a foreign entity, or other forms of treason.

The opposition to homosexual relations is primarily based on the Abrahamic religious tradition (Jews, Christians and Muslims) prohibition against homosexuality. The mere fact that this is the foundation of the outcry against same-sex relationships is evidence that the First Amendment "Establishment Clause" is being violated. But what seals the fate of this opposition is that even the Scriptural evidence offered by many of those opposing these relationships is not completely on solid grounds in terms of how we, as religious and spiritual people, should conduct ourselves in relation to others, regardless of their status before that which is held divine, versus what Scripture calls us to be as individuals. The manner in which both the Religious Right and the Political Right, both of which are led by our current president (despite some dissent), is persecuting those that hold different beliefs, customs, and values is neither moral according to Scripture or legal according to our Bill of Rights.

Further, the failure to balance the economic inequities institutionalized in terms of earnings by gender is yet another sexist issue in our society. Women, despite the decades of effort to balance earning potential, still earn 20% to 40% less than men holding comparable positions. But the Religious Right (especially the Christian Right), and the Political Right that has kowtowed to it, has opposed any and all efforts toward gender equity.

Yet, we have a divorce rate as high as anywhere else in the world (at least when all factors are held in balance). For a nation that the Christian Right claims is based upon Christian "family values," our divorce rate is evidence that such claims are not valid or accurate. In fact, it illustrates the hypocrisy and arbitrary adherence to Scripture by the Christian Right because the Gospel of Jesus clearly prohibits divorce except under certain specific conditions of immorality. That being the case, the fact that our divorce rate is over 50% demonstrates that these pre-supposed "family values" are not universal or dominant in our society.

Indeed, anyone who actually studies the social dynamics of our nation throughout our history will find that child abuse, incest and rape, discrimination, spousal abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction, criminality, and other social ills have plagued us, and that family values and support for families has been a phenomenon that has never really existed.

As an example, our nation's landlords have been exploitive throughout history and the government has had to step in with health and building codes in order to provide a decent housing situation for our families. Even then our codes have not been universally enforced, producing an institutionalized form of discrimination against those that do not meet the moral values and judgment of a religious doctrine instilled against, blacks, minorities, single mothers and their children, single men, homosexuals, and others that are "differently valued." This institutionalized discrimination is so predominant and persistent that we have state and federal agencies that have the specific task of assuring such discrimination either does not occur or is prosecuted.

We have even had to pass laws against such discriminatory practices in the workplace to protect women, children (labor laws), those of a different sexual orientation, those of ethnic or racial minorities, those of different religions and those of different ages. Does that history really represent "family" or even "Christian" values? No, indeed. It represents unfairness, inequity and a breach of our Constitutional first principles.

George W. Bush and so many within the GOP, and enough in other parts of the political spectrum, have employed our political and media processes to further these discriminatory practices and "values" for their own purposes, promotion of their will, and exertion of power and control over our society.

In my view Dr. Britt got this one slightly wrong. It is not just rampant sexism that is characteristic of fascism, it is all forms of institutionalized discrimination that those in power seek to spread through the government and the cultures of a nation.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

George W. Bush has allied himself, his administration, the GOP and the Religious Right with certain media celebrities and outlets that always offer a Bush-endorsed reporting process.

The way the Bush administration has released information through ordinary and extraordinary channels has always been done in such a way as it is intended to hide certain information from public view, discredit critics and their criticisms, undermine the validity of contrasting views, deflect criticisms or distract our attention from the real issues.

The release of Valerie Plame's identity was one such manipulation of the media. Plame's identity and role in the CIA were released by Bush administration officials through a manipulative process of the media. While Scooter Libby is taking the fall for these actions, it is reasonably clear that he was acting on orders, or on behalf of, those to whom he reported, including Vice President Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and President Bush. While this may not be able to be connected in a manner prescribed by law in our Constitution, we cannot dispute the fact that either Libby's superiors knew what was being done, or should have known that it was being done. In either case it is a manipulation of the media and the way we receive information.

Subsequent to the "Plame fiasco," several newspapers and media outlets have discovered, and eventually reported, Bush administration activities that either violated the law or were in direct conflict with statements made in public via the media. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice and others have then declared that such media leaks are illegal and should be prosecuted. In other words, when they deliberately leak it, it is legal, legitimate and valid, but when others investigate and find a source, it is against the law and against national security. But what reveals the hypocrisy of this position is the litany of excuses that came out when these folks were questioned about this apparent double standard, even statements coming from Vice President Cheney indicating that he can de-classify anything the government does without adhering to established rules, regulation and process.

But even the manner in which public events and speeches are conducted by these folks belies their intent to manipulate the media. Only certain "types" of people have been allowed into places where Cheney and Bush have appeared. Anyone that has sought to peaceably assemble and protest Bush, Cheney, Rice or others have been restricted from being near the places where they would appear or speak. Members of opposing political parties have been excluded from seeing President Bush at public appearances. Those wearing certain articles of clothing advocating certain political views or ideas have been removed from Bush and Bush gang forums.

Even the manner in which "embedded" reporters are allowed to participate in reporting news from Iraq and Afghanistan has been strictly manipulated by Bush and company. American reporters have been all but excluded from freely moving to sites in these regions and have not been able to report first hand on certain events. We have had to rely upon news reports from journalists and whistle blowers from other nations, many of whom are subject to dismissal because of their history of bias and inaccuracies. This has been a key manipulation of the media by the executive branch. Of course, this is in addition to all of the usual public relations and spin efforts put forth in the usual course of any presidential administration.

A fuller exploration of how the Bush administration has exploited the media, and how the media has been manipulated beyond what could be considered acceptable standards of journalism is found within Bill Moyers' Journal that aired on April 25, 2007. Moyers outlines how the mainstream media, with the possible exception of Knight-Ridder in the cases discussed, has been employing methods that no longer involve investigation and reliance on facts, but are more in tune with re-hashing press releases and quotes from media opportunities created by the White House, the Pentagon, or other official executive branch outlets. Since the Bush gang released that they could literally sell their lies with the help of the "corporate media" that was so lax in its checking of facts, details and truth, they released spin that deliberately misled the direction that the media would follow, or outright lies that no one bothered to challenge.

While our society resists control and manipulation of the media, the fact that our media is predominantly controlled by big corporations that benefit from fascism and fascist policies equates to a modicum of behind the scenes control and manipulation. Nixon recognized this when he threatened PBS with decreased funding over the McNeil-Lehrer news productions and the Washington Post (indirectly) over the Watergate reporting.

But Americans do not realize the power over big corporations held by the general public: If we as consumers decide to go elsewhere for our consumer needs and desires, these big corporations will cave-in on supporting fascism and other inappropriate behaviors. If even 40% of those watching the O'Reilly Factor were to shift away from watching Bill O'Reilly, Fox would react and adjust the programming and scheduling of O'Reilly's shows. We saw this in the Imus "nappy-headed ho's" incident. If 25% of those viewing ABC, NBC, or CBS, or even some of the cable channels, were to shift to a different channel, a different program, or even turn off the television during the news hours, these media moguls would respond. If everyone reading a single newspaper were to stop reading the paper for a week, and home subscribers suspended service for that week, these newspaper businesses would definitely react and respond.

The same is true for most politicians. If a significant proportion of any constituency were to react unfavorably to any given politician, 90% of them would fold, back-pedal or retract whatever caused such a response. This would be true of all politicians except those that are either untouchable (i.e. Supreme Court Justices, lame duck presidents) or those that do not give a damn. Unfortunately, George W. Bush falls into both of those categories.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

We do not need a whole lot of discussion on this point. A great illustration of this point is the numerous invasions of privacy and run-arounds of our Constitution justified by the fear-mongering over national security. The obsession has gone so deep that we are being tapped by the federal government in terms of our telephone calls, our e-mails, our chat rooms, our Internet usage, our mail, our business records and, most recently, by the effort to circumvent the Constitution with the "Real ID" laws and voter registration identification laws.

But this fear and obsession is also seen in the abusive and ineffective security measures at our airports (all the while ignoring security on other forms of mass transit and travel), where we have gone from passive security measures (i.e. passing through metal detectors) to a partial strip search where we have to remove our sweaters, jackets, shoes, belts, contents of our pockets as well as our toiletries, carry-on luggage and leave our baggage unsecured/unlocked without any recourse if the bag is breached and stuff goes missing.

But in the name of national security we sent troops to invade and occupy a sovereign nation without legal cause, proper evidence to support the causes we claimed, and with our own government lying to us about these causes and justifications. It seems to me that Hitler used the same tactics when he invaded Poland.

The ACLU, EFF, EPIC, CCR and other civil liberties and privacy advocacy groups are all involved in law suits against the Bush administration in regard to civil liberties violations. The entire fiasco at Gitmo is evidence of a deliberate and persistent effort to undermine our liberties and our first principles. Add these issues and events up and you see a definite pattern of fascist invasion of our rights and privacy by our own government, as well as an abandonment of first principles embedded in our Constitution and numerous treaties signed, ratified and incorporated into our Constitution.

All of these things have been done in the name of national security. But this is not the first time that these things have happened in our nation. During World War II we used national security to stigmatize and incarcerate Japanese-Americans. Those who suffered at this time have never been adequately compensated for the economic losses or the unlawful incarceration that they incurred.

After WWII, we saw the uprising of anti-communism with such fervor that we engaged in black listing, persecution and false accusation, and other violations of civil liberties under the banner of national security. Many of those that were targeted were Jewish-Americans, or immigrants/descendants of Central Eastern Europeans. Anyone that was even remotely socialist in their thinking was included in the McCarthy Era attacks.

During the 1960s, and even into the 1970s, any group that was involved in the Civil Rights Movement, the counter-culture movement, the black pride movements, women's rights movements, or the anti-war (Vietnam) was subject to infiltration by local, state and federal law enforcement without warrants, probable cause, or any solid justification under our Constitution. It was during this time that we saw the rise of outrage within the ranks of Congress and the subsequent passing of FISA. Of course, we have seen how the Bush administration has disregarded this law almost in its entirety.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

Let us count the ways...

The list can continue, but I think the religious indoctrination expressed by Harriet Meier, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice, and others promoted to high office in our government speaks better than a boring list. Even when these folks do not actually believe the stuff this administration spouts, they find political excuses (excuses, not reasons) to support these positions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

While not an exclusive posture and activity of the GOP or the Bush administration, more of it occurs under the GOP, Christian Right, Religious Right and Political Right administrations and/or control than under a balanced power structure, or even under the Dems, liberals or moderates.

Steven Emerson's work, "The American House of Saud" demonstrates how entrenched our government is in the ideology of supporting business over the rights of the ordinary citizen. Numerous scandals in government--including the Abramoff Scandals, ABSCAM, etc.--illustrates how deeply the bias in favor of Corporate America and Big Business (all of which is predominantly run by multi-national corporate powerhouses these days) which fund the campaigns of politicians.

But more of this has occurred under the Bush banner--this Bush and his father--than any other administration of the last nine presidencies. Even our invasion of Iraq and our involvement in the conflicts of the Middle East is ultimately focused on control of oil as the source of our utility and power grids, our transportation and our major manufacturing industries.

During the years of this Bush administration, as well as during the Reagan-Bush administrations, the number of corporate scandals has been significantly higher than most presidential runs. While a lot of scandal occurred under the Clinton years, as well as the Johnson era, if we look at the historical facts and trends, more corporate scandals have occurred under the Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush (Sr.) and the current Bush administration that under the Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton administrations.

Under this current administration we have had scandals involving the following Big Business corporations: Tyco, WorldCom, Enron, PG&E, Adelphia, RCN, Arthur Andersen, Dubai Ports World, and others, not to mention that the Bush administration has proudly proclaimed that there is no price gouging by the oil companies at the pump (yeah, right). In fact, Bush actively opposed many of the accounting reforms, including Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), which is now being lobbied in Congress for loosening of its grip, supported by the GOP and President Bush. But at the same time, Bush and the GOP have been busy providing these (and other) big corporations with major tax breaks, as well as not taking tax- and fee-dodgers to task, and opposing the increase in the minimum wage.

Then there are the no-bid contracts awarded during the onset of Afghanistan and the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. These contracts were awarded to corporations directly associated with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft (former legal affiliations) and George W. Bush and the Bush family. There has never been a complete review of these contracts, nor a new call for proposals so that other business entities can compete with Halliburton, KBR (a Halliburton subsidiary) or other "preferred" corporations. If we count the number of times these corporations have failed to deliver on the terms of their contracts, we can count this as yet another scandal.

Of course, we saw how deep into the body politic the Abramoff scandals went, including into a few on the Democrat side of the equation, but in an inordinate and perverse manner on the GOP side of the equation (i.e. Randall "Duke" Cunningham)... all the way to George W. Bush.

Enough said.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

The profound opposition to labor by the Religious Right, the Christian Right and the GOP under the umbrella of the false concept of "trickle down economics" has been ongoing since the middle of the 1960s when Barry Goldwater led the conservative movement in America. But folks like Goldwater, George Will, William F. Buckley, and a few others, can actually point out some sound issues that need to be considered. For the most part, however, the conservative side of the equation, and especially the ultra-conservative among them, haven't really bothered to fully investigate or fully comprehend the balance that is necessary between supporting business, business growth and the need to establish standards of fairness, equity and wages comparable to the contribution made by labor.

The failure of our nation to address the minimum wage in a manner that allows low-income earners to keep pace with inflation, wage deflation, and the way corporations and small businesses work around wage and workplace laws (especially discrimination matters) is saddening, sickening and a clear sign of the opposition to labor. The fact that migrant workers, restaurant workers and certain other classifications of lower earners are excluded from minimum wage laws and are systematically subsidized by the "gratuity" provisions or other regulations is patently unfair to labor. These regulations overly compensate the farm businesses (not small farms but big agro-businesses), the restaurant industries, the hospitality industries... all of whom are notorious for contributing to the issues of illegal immigration (we can throw the fabric and garment industries into this mess as well).

The "Westinghouse Decision" has all but tied the hands of EEOC personnel to address labor discrimination matters if there has been even the slightest refusal of an employee to undertake orders from a superior based on perceived (or actual) safety issues. The funding and staffing of both federal and state agencies that deal with labor and employment matters has been systematically cut under every Republican administration since Nixon. The current Bush administration has empowered union and collective bargaining efforts by its pro-Big Business agendas and policies.

The lobbying efforts of Big Business, with the acknowledgment and participation of key Bush players like Karl Rove, has led to an ever-increasing access to our political leadership within the Bush administration and the previously GOP-dominated Congress sessions. It's not that there isn't a lot of lobbying under the current (or past) Democratic-dominated congressional sessions, it's that any comparison shows a significant imbalance and disproportionate kowtowing by GOP members.

Even our health care issues and welfare regulations are tied into the means of discriminating against labor. Think about it. Almost all of our health care is funded through insurance provided by employers, but most of our lowest income earners are not provided with such coverage. The working poor--many of whom work two and three jobs--take any job possible to make ends meet, most of which are deliberately held to part-time status or do not offer health care benefits at all. Even those of us fortunate to have decent health care coverage through our employers are seeing this benefit being eroded to a point that it is costing between five to ten times more out of our salary deductions every three to five years.

But the opposition to a national health care plan is opposed by the insurance and medical center industries (not necessarily all doctors). The insurance industry knows that a national health care plan would significantly cut their ability to manipulate their profit margins and the way medicine, as a business rather than a profession, is run. And George W. Bush and company are deeply entrenched in their opposition to a national health care plan, just as much as they are deeply in bed with the high-mucky-mucks that have their fingers on the insurance industry (i.e. investment bankers, insurance boards, insurance executives, etc.).

Welfare reform is also tied to these issues. We have a system where it still pays more to be on welfare than to take a low-paying job because welfare provides medical coverage and low-paying jobs do not. Yet, almost all of our rehab and welfare-sponsored training programs focus on training folks for the lowest paying jobs, such as nurse's aide, medical assistant, medical office assistant, massage therapists, etc. These are not only low-paying areas of employment, but in most geographical locations in the US the job market for such positions are overly saturated with graduates of the numerous proprietary schools that have been milking and bilking the state and federal systems for over 20 years, if not longer.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

The fact that George W. Bush, despite Harriet Meier's claim regarding his brilliance, doesn't read reports, newspapers or intellectually challenge any report that adheres to his preconceived notions, predetermined agendas and/or agendas should be enough evidence on this point. We could even add his mediocre academic performance--despite having access to all of the best preparatory and post-secondary institutions--and his record of failure in many endeavors and at various levels.

But I believe his positions on education, especially his position on NCLB (No Child Left Behind) that speaks volumes on these issues. In the decades between 1950 and 1980 we learned so much about the inherent bias involved in the development of standardized testing approaches. In the 1960s and 1970s we had national and state programs of standardized testing involving "achievement tests" from California, Iowa, ETS and other sources. After decades of testing we discovered that standardized testing was not a very reliable tool when it became the predominant (or only) assessment tool for what was going on in a student's learning process.

We also discovered that using standardized testing inherently held some flaws, not the least of which was the manner in which the instruments were based upon experiences of the dominant caucasian culture. A good example that I remember from my college study of research methods, statistics and educational testing was the use of words like "sofa," "divan," and "settee" in a narrative paragraph describing a social scenario in a reading comprehension test item. A vast majority of minority Americans, especially those with significant language differences in regard to English, African-Americans and/or those coming from a family background with lower socio-economic standing did not recognize these "high brow terms" as meaning the same as a "couch." This lack of contextual recognition came from the simple fact that these kids had never heard these terms used as alternatives for any type of furniture, and in fact most of these terms were words long gone out of common parlance (except for sofa, perhaps) in most family and home settings.

But even the analysis of the testing in longitudinal studies demonstrated that standardized testing was useful for diagnostic purposes, and for generally ranking achievement, but not very useful for comparison of student performance on a district, state, regional or national level. Taking this a step further, if such was the case for so many of the standardized tests in regard to students, how much more inappropriate would using tests for ranking and comparing schools on a regional, state and national level.

Using tests scores as the sole assessment metric for assessing school performance is useless because it negates and ignores so many other factors that can affect school performance. Not the least of these factors is the funding of the school and the manner in which the school board and administrators manage those funds. There are school districts that will fund the sports programming as a higher priority than textbook updates.

Then there is the level of community support for a school or school district. In some places, education is given its due consideration as a means to career advancement and employment, but also as a means to improving the quality of life for the individual, the community, the town/city, the region, the state, and the nation. The very nature and notion of education as a "liberating" and empowering process, as was the common view of our founding fathers, has all but been erased from our schools.

Regardless of whether anyone actually agrees with all that I have written above, no one can disagree that NCLB is yet another un-funded mandate coming from the federal government. The funds necessary to address many of the issues that a "non-performing" or "under-performing" school might have aren't forthcoming from the fed. The most important of these issues, in my view, is class size. I have yet to work at a public high school where the class size is below 25, and where the average class size is closer to 30 or 35. Since there is overwhelming evidence points to smaller class sizes as being a crucial factor in teaching and learning quality, as well as outcomes, the funding for the appropriate number of teachers to assure small class sizes has never been forthcoming.

In this regard I have seen the vast majority of teacher union representatives as being equally culpable, placing pay raises in such a high priority that class size always seems to be used as a negotiation tool or wedge. A classic example of this is in the city of Lynn, Massachusetts. Every union contract for the last 30 years has had language to the effect that class size was a major issue and problem. However, at the crucial moment in negotiating the contract, the pressure to reduce and control class size has always given way to pay negotiations. The result is that already over-worked and inadequately paid professionals receive a small bump in salary, but working conditions continue to suck and school performance is neglected. This reality helps neither the teachers nor the students, but benefits the union reps and the administrators to play their political games. It is also important to note that after almost 30 years of representing the union, the long-time union president in this city became a high-level consultant to the school district upon his retirement as an teacher.

But the disregard for education is also illustrated by the funding of our college level students. Regardless of the recent "discovery" of numerous scandals regarding financial aid and student loans, the fact that other nations offer post-secondary education at a reasonable cost, all the while our colleges and universities (including the state and federally sponsored institutions) are raising tuition, fees, room and board to levels that are unreachable for far too many students with potential. This is even more the case in terms of graduate and doctoral degrees. One of the most striking results is that we are importing intellectual assets from nations other than the US and our legal, medical, nursing, engineering, computer and other highly technical and/or scientific fields are filled with foreign-born and foreign-trained professionals.

Not to be prejudicial, but practical, how much concern is a foreign-born, foreign-trained professional going to have for our nation? Given the manner in which the US is perceived and held in low esteem these days in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America, and the fact that most of these professionals are spending their money by investing it in their home nations--many having retirement plans that involve returning to their nations of origin--it would seem counter-intuitive to allow so many HB-1 visas for such professions instead of funding our own students for these same positions.

Even further is the disdain for intellect that we see coming from Bush, his merry band of "yes men." and the vast majority of GOP members regarding any intellectual challenge to their world view, agendas and spins on the issues. The difference between the statements and press releases and the outrageous statements and spins from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Robertson, Falwell, et al., is negligible. The words used to describe most college campuses and faculties from Bush and his far-right supporters accuse most, if not all, faculty members of being communists rather than learned in their fields of study. While I can agree that there has been an undermining of academic standards from the influence of socialistic and communistic movements, painting the entirety of education as being communist is neither valid or anything less than an attack on intellectualism and academic achievement.

Even the selection of officials for high positions in government demonstrates the disdain for intellectuals and academic credentials. Harriet Meier is an example. So, too, is Alberto Gonzales. While Chief Justice Roberts has a record of intellectual achievement, the choice of Sam Alito (who was a second choice to Hariet Meier) doesn't even begin to consider his academic, intellectual or scholarly achievements or potential. But none of the Bush choices for the SCOTUS reflect a regard for anything more than the adherence to ideology. Such was the case in the Reagan and previous Bush appointments as well. Even those being offered posts in the district and appellate benches are not being selected for their intellectual abilities, legal scholarship or record of achievement, but for their ideology and support of the Bush/GOP agendas.

The way in which this anti-intellectual/anti-education dynamic plays out even erodes and undermines support for education from the Democrats.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

The entire approach to the "war on terrorism" has followed a trend that has been used by almost every GOP campaign since the days of JFK and Johnson. Between the law and order approach and the overwhelming focus on welfare reform as the two major causes of all problems in America (and today we add the illegal immigration issue to this litany), we have seen numerous bad policies and laws implemented. Additionally, we have seen operations under the umbrella of law enforcement, especially in regard to drug trafficking, that have held little regard for civil liberties, international law, or effectiveness of the action.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

The evidence of cronyism and corruption is all over the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled congress that has supported his administration. The Abramoff scandals alone point to this major characteristic of fascism. But the Enron scandal touches the White House and the Oval Office. The scandal involving the release of the identity and role of a CIA operative is yet another illustration, involving Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and most likely George W. Bush. The firing of eight US Attorneys for political reasons, as well as the hiring of others based upon religious affiliation adds another brick to the Bush House of Scandal. The culture of deceit that has been the forte of the Bush administration.

But even those that have been selected as officers within the Bush administration illustrates the cronyism. Certainly recent history has proven that neither Harriet Meier, Alberto Gonzales, Condaleeza Rice, John Ashcroft or Donald Rumsfeld were among the best possible choices for high political office. But Meier was a crony of George W.'s days in Texas, as was Gonzales. Both are supposed to be well-educated lawyers, but neither of them has an inkling as to what our Constitution is all about. Gonzales held a position on the Texas Supreme Court, but can't figure out that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the delineation of powers in the body of our Constitution are not subject to secret rulings, signing statements or the arbitrary whims of a power-grabbing president.

Meier was actually nominated by Dubya for a position on our US Supreme Court, despite the fact that she had no credentials for being nominated. The fact that she stated publicly that George W. is one of the smartest men she has ever met should have tipped the whole nation off that something was awry in the West Wing.

But Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Cheney are holdovers from previous GOP administrations, some of whom were actually around the Nixon White House and tied to the Watergate scandals in a remote manner. Most of these cronies also had ties to Papa Bush's administration, and many of them had urged Papa to rush into Iraq during the first Gulf War. Fortunately, Papa Bush had better sense and figured out that the name of the game was not to leave a power vacuum and void in the wake of slapping Saddam Hussein down for his ego-maniacal desire to control the Middle East and the oil markets of the world.

Rumsfeld has already been labeled as the "worst Secretary of Defense in history." His utter incompetence, and Bush's staunch support of him no matter how much he screwed up, speaks volumes about how cronies fit into this administration. The fact that Rumsfeld is being considered a war criminal across the Atlantic and some intelligent and law-minded folks are trying to get the International Criminal Court to hear the charges against him illustrates how wrong he was for the job. But in my mind it was Rumsfeld's statement regarding going to war with the "Army you have, not the Army you want" in regard to his failure to see that our troops were properly supplied and protected that seals his fate in hell. When Rumsfeld dies he will find the gates to Heaven blocked by our troops that died and an honor guard from Hell waiting to escort him to the side of Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Pinochet, Tojo and other infamous world figures.

Ashcroft did not possess a clue about American culture, nor the Christianity he professed. He was judgmental and bigoted. He was a prude of extraordinary measure, and he will be remembered for as much folly as will Edwin Meese for his attack on all forms of pornography as the foundation for America's social problems. Like Meese, Ashcroft never let the facts interfere with his ideology, preconceived notions, or his political agenda. He began the programs that Gonzales has continued, including the use of Patriot Act letters, the grabbing of transactional databases, the several programs of unwarranted spying, the desire to search our mails, etc. Ashcroft spent $8,000 to cover up the bronze bust of a statue that had been on the steps of one of our national treasures of architecture because of his modesty, but bared his ass in front of the whole world every time he spoke on issues of importance. When Ashcroft reaches Heaven he will be given an isolated section in which to live out eternity because he believes he is the only one that belongs there.

But the worst of the cronyism is the manner in which contracts and business of our government is being handled. Oil companies--all of which have long-standing ties to the Bush family--are being let off the hook for flagrant violations of law, as well as having to pay royalties to our national coffers because Bush is playing favorites. Granted, the errors in these contracts go back to the Clinton administration, but the last time I checked, any contract that violated the law or was against public policy and/or interest was null and void. A first year law student could make the case against these oil companies and their claim that they do not owe royalties. A second year law student could make the case against the claim these oil companies might have as to the validity of the existing contracts. Imagine our surprise that Bush has ordered the DOJ to take a hands-off approach to these issues.

Then there are the games that the Bush gang has been playing with our environment. The Supreme Court handed Bush and company a major blow when it ruled that the EPA not only had the authority to regulate pollution of our air created by Big Businesses that the Bush folks favored, but the EPA also had a duty to do so. The Bush gang has been trying every possible tactic to allow lumber companies, oil companies and mining companies to claim our natural resources on national lands and wilderness. The coal companies have not been pursued regarding its deadly disregard of mine worker safety. Every possible support has been offered those who want to increase offshore oil drilling despite the fact that protections against major spills and dangers to wildlife have not been resolved.

While there have been obstacles that have kept the Bush gang from flat out surrendering our resources to powerful corporate entities, it has not stopped the overall effort to do so. The no-bid, no-review contracts awarded to Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, and its subsidiaries is a perfect example of the issue. While some of us--not me of course--might buy into the argument that the president had the authority to award a no-bid contract on an emergency basis, no one can argue that such a contract should not have been reviewed for its efficacy, accountability and accuracy. The number of contracts that have been proven to have huge amounts of waste, fraud and/or mismanagement is staggering. The number of already built projects that are crumbling and failing--not due to combat damage but due to poor quality in design and construction--after only 1 or 2 years after completion is also staggering. The number of projects that have administrative costs exceeding 40% of the costs incurred, without even the foundation of these projects being completed, causes even more staggering wonder and awe at the level of corruption. Even when a Halliburton subsidiary delivered undrinkable bottled water to our troops we did not see a proper response from anyone in the Bush administration.

President Eisenhower warned us that this sort of stuff was happening, but there has never been any political will in DC to stop it. Bush and his gang of fascist thugs have only taken full advantage of our neglect over these issues and exploited them in ways not previously considered for fear of impeachment, prosecution and outrage from the American people. Where is that outrage? Where is the prosecution? Where is the impeachment?

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Bush's first administration was "won" under what most intelligent human beings would consider fraudulent means. In fact, the average European human being cannot believe that our courts supported his win. The GOP smeared John Kerry with a lot of messages regarding his "flip-flopping" and lack of character. Well, we now know that John Kerry was not the best candidate for the job, but he would have been a hell of a lot more principled and controllable than George W. I doubt Kerry, or Gore from the first run, would have authorized the sweeping secret spying operations, or employed the claim to signing statements, or authorized the use of torture and/or extraordinary rendition. In fact, I doubt that either one of those folks would have established a indefinite detention center at Gitmo, never mind creating the culture of abuse that formed the foundation for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

The use of governmental meetings in violation of the Hatch Amendment to push ideological and political agendas is another example of election fraud. Our government employees are not supposed to be pressured to conform to political agendas or to be subjected to political assaults of this type. The firing of competent US Attorneys with proven records of achievement based upon political, ideological and religious affiliation is yet another example of how Bush has fulfilled this characteristic of fascism.

But the issue that smacks me in the face most is the exclusivity that Bush and others in his administration have used in regard to who can attend public appearances--campaign-related and otherwise--by the president, vice president and other high officials. The fact that folks that do not necessarily support Bush have had to peacefully protest at distances up to five miles away from where Bush was appearing, rather than right outside the show like other presidents have had to endure, illustrates his disdain for the First Amendment and the lengths to which he and his gang will go to control political processes. The right to address our leaders and seek redress of grievances has been violated by Bush and his gang in a fascist manner at almost every turn.

It is important to note that all of Bush's fascism is displayed not only in identifiable incidents that illustrate Dr. Britt's 14 characteristics, but the collective behaviors overlap and work in congruent ways to create a distinct pattern of fascism. The only difference between Bush's fascism and the fascism of other world leaders throughout history is the degree to which he is able to effect it under our system of government. But even that has become a questionable distinction. There may be arguments that Bush is not as bad as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Pinochet. But I would argue that such is not the case. Instead, we have had so many excuses made for Bush and so much propaganda that we haven't bothered to take notice that his methods and ideology are as bad as those employed by Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet or others. We can always make excuses. It is immeasurably harder to take action and stand up against fascism.

Signs Of Erosion In Iraq & Our Own Military

2007-04-25T05:00:00.000-07:00

Al-Maliki Support Eroding in Iraq

Not only are we witnessing numerous scandals involving our own military, the breakdown of authority over Iraqi forces by the Iraqi government, the mobilization of sectarian militia and protesters at the beck and call of sectarian clerics, now we are seeing the faith, credibility and confidence in Iraq's Prime Minister al-Maliki eroding away.

The Bush gang keeps citing the improvements and the momentum of the al-Maliki government as the basis for recent troop surges and the staunch defense of the Bush Doctrine to remain in Iraq despite the call for withdrawal. But, as has been the case since the call for the AUMF that prompted Bush to invade and occupy Iraq, we have been lied to on a consistent basis. Recent hearings before Congress has revealed that military commanders have been co-opted into this "culture of deceit" and campaigns of controlling what information reaches Congress and the People of the United States.

Similar to the situation involving Alberto Gonzales, president Bush is sticking to his guns and stating full support for al-Maliki. But Bush also stuck to his guns for Rice, Meier, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, all of whom have been among the worst officials of the executive branch we have ever had.

A broad range of prominent Iraqi lawmakers say they have lost confidence in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ability to reconcile the country's warring factions. A leading Kurdish lawmaker said al-Maliki should resign.

Legislators from several parties told USA TODAY that al-Maliki lacks the support in parliament to push through laws, such as a plan to distribute oil revenues, that could reduce tensions between Sunnis and Shiites. Iraq's parliament has failed to pass major legislation since a U.S.-led security plan began on Feb. 14.

"He is a weak prime minister," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish legislator who supported al-Maliki until recently. "This government hasn't delivered and is not capable of doing the job. They should resign."

The loss of support came as Democrats agreed Monday on legislation that would force U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq by Oct. 1. President Bush, who said he would veto the bill, has argued that Iraq's government needs more time to calm sectarian violence.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in Baghdad last week that the U.S. military commitment is not "open ended" and will be re-evaluated in late summer based in part on whether parliament has made progress. Al-Maliki seems unable to broker deals among the fractious alliance of Kurds and Shiites who supported his appointment last May, said Qasim Dawood, a member of al-Maliki's coalition.

"The present government is not competent," said Dawood, a Shiite legislator. "It's more or less paralyzed, inactive. I doubt very much that this government can continue in power much longer."

A political adviser to al-Maliki, whose term ends in 2010, said that the prime minister has no power to pass laws by himself. "We can only ask, push, the (parliament) to approve," Sadiq al-Rikabi said.

Al-Rikabi said there is no viable alternative to al-Maliki as prime minister. "Suppose he resigns," al-Rikabi said. "Then what is the solution?"

The Bush administration "has confidence in Prime Minister Maliki," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

U.S. Command Shortens Life of ‘Long War’ as a Reference

It also appears the the leadership within the DOD and the Pentagon are experiencing some erosion in terms of the commitment they are willing to make to the "never ending war" in Iraq and on terrorism. It is clear that military measures are not the right tool or resource for tracking down and bringing terrorist criminals to justice. Nor are they the right tool for spreading democracy, and our military leaders are ALL beginning to take notice. The wearing away of the propaganda use of the "long war" offered by Bush and company is just the first sign that the Bush Doctrine, the Bush administration, and the "war on terror" are failures.

When the Bush administration has sought to explain its strategy for fighting terrorism, it has often said the United States is involved in a “long war” against Islamic extremists.

The phrase was coined by Gen. John P. Abizaid before he retired as head of the Central Command. It was intended to signal to the American public that the country was involved in a lengthy struggle that went well beyond the war in Iraq and was political as well as military.

It would be a test of wills against “Islamofascism,” as President Bush once put it. It would also be a historic challenge that spanned generations much like the battles against Communism.

As it turned out, however, the long war turned out to be surprisingly short-lived, at least at the command that pioneered the term. After taking over last month as the head of Central Command, Adm. William J. Fallon quietly retired the phrase.

Military officials said that cultural advisers at the command had become concerned that the concept of a long war alienated Middle East audiences by suggesting that the United States would keep a large number of forces in the region indefinitely.

Admiral Fallon was also said to have been unenthusiastic about the phrase. He has stressed the importance of focusing on the difficult situation in Iraq and in achieving results as soon as possible. The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.

The change “is a product of our ongoing effort to use language that describes the conflict for our Western audience while understanding the cultural implications of how that language is construed in the Middle East,” Lt. Col. Matthew McLaughlin, a spokesman for the command, said in an e-mail message. “The idea that we are going to be involved in a ‘Long War,’ at the current level of operations, is not likely and unhelpful.”

“We remain committed to our friends and allies in the region and to countering Al Qaeda-inspired extremism where it manifests itself, but one of our goals is to lessen our presence over time. We didn’t feel that the term ‘Long War’ captured this nuance,” he added.

Afghan Torture Claim Prompts Calls for Canada Defense Chief Resignation

It also appears, based on this report and the withdrawal of coalition forces by other nations, and the almost universal back door condemnations of the US approach to terrorism, detention and the treatment of those in US custody or under US control.

But a culture of deceit, abuse and scandal seems to be the only thing the Bush administration can offer. It is apparent that the contamination brought into Iraq is also being brought to Afghanistan. This culture is being mimicked by the Iraqis and Afghanis in many ways, including the treatment of captives, the indiscriminate use of torture and military might on intelligence suspects, is eroding any hope of success in either place.

Additionally, we are being taken to task on our abuse of human rights, due process and our hypocrisy. It is shameful that our trusted neighbors and allies are forced to take us to task instead of being able to approach us and seek a balanced solution to the problems they see as relevant and important. The disgrace of our actions is now being felt by leaders in other nations because they, too, are caught in the ethical trap that we have created over there.

We seem to be spreading the contamination of evil all over the world.

Thirty terror suspects were tortured by Afghan security forces after being being transferred from Canadian custody, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported Monday. The detainees gave accounts of being beaten, electrocuted, starved, and left in freezing temperatures while detained in Kandahar province jails. The report prompted calls for the resignation of Canadian Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor by Canadian opposition members from the New Democratic Party, Liberal Party, and Bloc Québécois. Opposition MPs also called for an end to the prison transfers and for a public inquiry to be held. O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper maintain that Canadian troops did nothing wrong but pledged to investigate the allegations.

In February the Canadian government ordered an official inquiry into reported detainee abuse in Afghanistan. The probe began following a civilian complaint filed by University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, whose research uncovered a pattern of suspicious injuries on three detainees captured last April and later released. In 2005, Chief of Defense Staff Gen. Rick Hillier signed the Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement authorizing the transfers; Attaran said the agreement did not give Canada the power to inspect detainees after their transfers, thus allowing broad latitude for torture to occur.

The "ABC" Disconnection

2007-04-24T19:05:00.000-07:00

My mother-in-law and father-in-law are wonderful people. They really are quite generous and loving. But they belong to the ultra-conservative Christian Right. As such they provide me with the perfect "sounding board" for any of my political, scientific or social arguments. If I have a viewpoint that I want to test out against the views of the Christian Right, all I have to do is let a "trial balloon" loose in one of our many conversations and I immediately get smacked in the face with the same arguments that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye and other right-oriented Christians.

Abortion is one of those issues that we disagree on. While I am a Christian and hold personal convictions against abortion, I also belief that God gave us choices and the freedom to be in charge of making those choices, and responsible for the same. As human beings we are inherently imperfect in our decision-making process. Throughout our history we have relied on a lot of false and inaccurate information when making many of our choices. Historically, the Christian Church, in all its manifestations, has led people to believe certain things as being "truth" that were not so. In fact, many Christians who developed contrasting or competing views, based on observation and experimentation, were persecuted, punished, ostracized or put to death.

But somewhere along the way human beings discovered science. Science began opening our eyes to some truths. However, even the best science is conducted by human beings and suffers the same inherent potential for flaws in the reasoning, including bias, prejudice and errors. But science, unlike religion or faith, if done in a conscientious manner offers us a forum and a methodology for our work to be tested, proven and critiqued. Still, not everyone approaches science in such a conscientious manner. Further, we sometimes design our experimentation based on theoretical assumptions that are later proven to be either inaccurate or incomplete. In such a case, science provides us with a forum and methodology for revamping our assumptions, our theories and re-work our experiments.

But, like my in-laws, man within the Christian Right are so convinced about the teachings of their pastors (rather than independently studying Scripture, Church history, linguistic origins of the Bible, etc.) that they refuse to listen or hear any criticism or conflicting information, especially if that information comes from science. A good example of this is the debate on evolution. There are very few scientists that do not acknowledge evolution as a sound theory and foundation for biological science. There is a tremendous amount of research, observation, experimentation and information that supports evolution as a sound theory.

In the case of abortion, many within the ranks of the Christian Right are so entrenched in their world view, which is often fed to them as doctrine, that any opportunity to criticize and discredit those that believe in abortion rights or provide science-based information on abortion. Some within the Christian Right have even gone so far as to interfere with the civil liberties of others. Some have even advocated, or actually committed, murder of those that perform abortions.

Many within the Christian Right have made claims, based on some reports coming from the United Kingdom and a few studies done on rats (which I think are inherently unethical), that there is a link between abortions and breast cancer. In the last couple of days a science-based report that followed stringent rules regarding the conduct of the observation, experimentation and statistical/epidemiological analyses has been released that clearly indicates that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.

I have conducted a literature review on this issue, looking for flaws in the science claims and arguments offered from both sides of this debate and disagreement. What I discovered was that those studies done in the UK were funded and conducted by folks that were committed to finding ways to discredit abortion on the basis of their beliefs. The study with the rats was conducted in a manner that does not hold up to scrutiny by peers in the scientific community. There are flaws in the methods, the theoretical assumptions, and the bias being brought into the process.

But, as I stated above, science provides us with a method of testing the findings of any given study. The method requires that any study reporting findings be submitted to the scrutiny of other scientists. In fact, what is required as the "gold standard" in this regard is a repeat of the entire set of observations, experiments and analyses, resulting in an identical, or almost identical, result. Statistical and epidemiological analysis requires scrutiny of the mathematics, the statistical test chosen for the analysis, and a review of the data and its collection methods.

But abortion has become a major political football and religious views, ideologies and emotional arguments have been brought into the process. Since politics is often based on the will, whims and emotions of a majority, or at least those in control (cultural relativism), our laws do not always adhere to standards and principles derived from science or reputable information. Such is the case in at least five states that have passed laws that require family planning clinics and gynecology health care centers to provide women with information that links abortion with breast cancer. But, as this recent, very valid study reveals, such a link does not exist and the basis promoted by the majority or powerful is significantly flawed and erroneous.

The claim that there is a higher risk of breast cancer among women that have undergone an abortion is false and does not hold up under stringent scientific and medical practice scrutiny. The evidence for the so-called ABC Connection (Abotion-Breast Cancer Connection) is bogus and utterly false. The laws that require distribution of information claiming the link is real is an injustice in both a moral and legal sense.

But the Religious Right, especially the Christian Right, has a history of deliberately skewing the information it promotes and distributes in favor of their world view, indoctrination and teachings of their pastoral leaders (very few of whom have a background in science and/or medicine).

A case-in-point is the effort to force a school district in Dover, Pennsylvania, to include instruction and information regarding "intelligent design" as an acceptable and alternative theory of biological science, in direct contrast and contradiction of evolution. The claim by the Christian Right was that this was not "Creation Theory" (creationism) or biblical doctrine, but a genuine and valid scientific theory. However, as was delineated in the court's decision, the Christian Right proponents in this case misrepresented the information, including an outright lie about the origins of literature espousing "intelligent design" as being different from the Christian version of creationism.

The information provided by the Coalition on Abortion and Breast Cancer, and touted by its president, Karen Malec, at every corner of the nation and at every opportunity possible is skewed and biased. The proof of this claim of bias and skewed information is present on the Coaltions own web site:

1. Karen Malec, who has been the president of the coalition since 1999, has no legitimate credentials in science or medicine. Her bona fides comes strinctly from her work as an advocate against abortion and pro-choice policies and laws. Her wiring has always been for anti-abortion outlets and media and none of her work has ever been submitted to stringent review by peers in the science community.

2. The Board of the Coalition do not have a lot of credibility in terms of science credentials either. While one member does have a Ph.D and another has an M.D., both of these folks have been long-term members of the Religious Right and have brought their bias and advocacy views (ideology) to the forefront of their claims and reports.

In the case of Dr. Brind, most of the work he has done regarding the link between abortion and breast cancer were published or released by pro-life organizations like the National Right to Life News, as indicated on his Baruch College web page listing of his publications. While he is a recognized professor in life sciences, none of his work on the ABC Connection has withstood scrutiny by peers in the scientific community.

In the case of Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, he is a doctor of internal medicine, not a gynecologist, a pharmacologist, endocrinologist or oncologist. His reviews and writings on the ABC Connection have been predominantly published or released on pro-life sites like Life Issues, which is operated by the Catholic Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate.

There is an inherent conflict in the approach used by both of these people.

John Kindley is a lawyer that has a record of pushing pro-life law suits, legislation and causes. Babette Francis works for the Endeavour Forum, a group that defines its purpose as "Endeavour Forum was set up to counter feminism, defend the unborn and the traditional family." Penny Pullen is a former member of the Illinois House, and a representative of the Life Advocacy Project, a pro-life, Religious Right advocacy group. While I did not bother to research the background of the other board members, it is clear that all of the board members have a specific bias in the way they conduct their "research" into these matters.

In contrast to the advocacy approach espoused by the folks named above, I believe in researching both sides of an issue. Even when I engage in advocacy, I endeavor to remain honest in my research efforts. In pursuit of that honesty, I subscribe to organizations and media outlets that offer contrasting and opposing views. I have even worked with anti-abortion advocates in researching these issues. As I have stated, I believe abortion is morally, spiritually and religiously wrong. But I am a Catholic and I base that belief on my reading of Scriptures, the teachings of my Church (not just one preacher) and my own experience in medicine, nursing, science, ethics and history. But I am also a civil libertarian that believes the principles embedded and embodied in our Constitution are essential for our society and are God-given, one hundred percent in congruence with the principles given to us by Christ.

So, we now have reliable data and study of the ABC Connection, and there is no such link, according to a study that will withstand the scrutiny of peers and provide similar results in future studies that use the same methods and standards.

Study Doesn't Back Abortion-Cancer Link

Neither induced abortion nor miscarriage appears to influence breast cancer risk in premenopausal women, a new U.S. study concludes.

"In this cohort study of young women, we found no association between induced abortion and breast cancer incidence and a suggestion of an inverse association between spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and breast cancer incidence during 10 years of follow-up," says a team from Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

They reported their findings in the April 23 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.

The researchers examined data on almost 106,000 women who took part in the Nurses' Health Study II, which began in 1993. The women were ages 29 to 46 at the start of the study.

Among the women, more than 16,000 reported having had an induced abortion at some point in their lives and almost 22,000 reported having had a miscarriage. Between 1993 and 2003, there were 1,458 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed among the women.

They found no link between abortion, miscarriage and breast cancer generally. However, "we observed associations in two subgroups, an association between induced abortion and progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer (cancer that does not respond to the hormone progesterone) and an inverse association between spontaneous abortion before the age of 20 years and breast cancer incidence."

The researchers noted that these secondary analyses were based on small numbers of women, however. "No obvious mechanisms can be provided for these subgroup findings; thus, chance has to be considered as a possible explanation," they wrote.

Study Doesn't Back Abortion-Cancer Link

A Harvard study released Monday supports earlier findings by a panel of experts that having an abortion doesn't increase a woman's risk of getting breast cancer.

However, this latest analysis isn't likely to convince all those opposed to abortion. Three states _ Texas, Minnesota and Mississippi _ require doctors to warn women seeking abortions of the purported link to breast cancer "when medically accurate," letting doctors make that determination based on current scientific evidence.

In 2003, a group of scientists convened by the National Cancer Institute concluded abortion did not raise the risk of breast cancer.

What evidence shows is that childbearing before the age of 35 reduces a woman's breast cancer risk and breast-feeding also helps, said the new study's lead author Karin Michels of Harvard Medical School. Scientists believe breast cells that have gone through a full-term pregnancy gain protection against cancer, she said.

Studies that found a link between abortion and breast cancer have relied on reports from women with cancer and healthy women about whether they'd had abortions in the past. The women with cancer may have been more likely than healthy women to report abortions as they searched for reasons why they got sick, Michels said.

The new study, appearing in Monday's Archives of Internal Medicine, looked at data from 105,716 women participating in the Nurses' Health Study, which was established in 1976 to study a wide range of health issues affecting women.

The women, ages 29 to 46 at the start of the study, were followed for 10 years. Every two years, they were asked about abortions, miscarriages and new breast cancer diagnoses. The researchers looked at medical records to confirm the diagnoses.

The researchers found no greater rate of breast cancer among the women who reported having abortions, compared to the other women. They saw no greater risk associated with multiple abortions and no greater risk linked with miscarriages.

Joel Brind, a biochemist with City University of New York's Baruch College, was the sole dissenter to the 2003 NCI report on abortion and breast cancer. He said the new study is flawed because it included very recent abortions _ too recent for them to contribute to the development of cancer. Including those abortions in the analysis may have diluted the cancer rates, he said.

Michels said more than 90 percent of the abortions in the study occurred before 1993.

Anger Over Abortion Cancer Study - December 2001

A study claiming women who have an abortion could double their chance of developing breast cancer has been attacked by experts.

The study was funded by the pro-life charity LIFE, and indicated that over the next 26 years, up to 50% of breast cancer cases in England and Wales could be "attributable to abortion".

But the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) said there was no new evidence of a link, and accused LIFE of "mischief-making".

Scientists behind the study, carried out by independent statisticians from the Populations and Pensions Research Institution, say the connection could be due to oestrogen levels rising significantly during the first three months of pregnancy.

Professor Allan Templeton of the RCOG said he knew of no new evidence proving a causal link between abortion and breast cancer.

"LIFE are mischief making and we do not support the sensational reporting of this study which serves no other function than causing anxiety amongst women.

"We reiterate our advice to women that no causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been proven and that this report should not influence women in making decisions about abortion at difficult times in their life."

Oestrogen Connection

The research, led by Patrick Carroll, looked at breast cancer and abortion rates in Britain, Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic.

It made a direct statistical link between rising cases of breast cancer and an increase in abortion rates since it was legalised.

It said the total number of breast cancer cases was expected to more than double from 35,110 in 1997 to 77,000 in 2023, "largely" because of abortions carried out on women who have not yet had a baby.

He said: "Breast cancer incidence has risen ... in parallel with rising abortion rates. There is no doubt there is a causal relationship."

He estimated up to 50% of cases could be attributable to abortion."

Launching the research, Professor Joel Brind, director of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute in New York, said the increase in oestrogen levels of around 2000% during the first three months of a pregnancy was the most likely way risk was increased in women who had an abortion.

He added: "Women are at risk and they do not really know about it. They certainly don't seem to be finding out about it from the NHS.

LIFE estimates that by the end of 2001, at least 22,000 women in England and Wales could have developed breast cancer as a direct result of having had abortions carried out under the 1967 Act.

They say this means around about 5,500 women could have died or will die as a direct result.

"Unless there is a major advance in the near future in prevention we predict that by 2003 over 360,000 women may have developed breast cancer directly attributable to abortion. Most of their abortions have already taken place," said Professor Jack Scarisbrick of LIFE.

Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk

Introduction

A woman’s hormone levels normally change throughout her life for a variety of reasons, and these hormonal changes can lead to changes in her breasts. Many such hormonal changes occur during pregnancy, changes that may influence a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer later in life. As a result, over several decades a considerable amount of research has been and continues to be conducted to determine whether having an induced abortion, or a miscarriage (also known as spontaneous abortion), influences a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer later in life.

Current Knowledge

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop.

Wikipedia: Abortion-Breast Cancer Hypothesis

This Wikipedia entry on the ABC Connection is a great outline of the debate, the research, the biases, the politics and other issues tied into the social and cultural beliefs on these matters.

A Fallen Hero Finally Gets His Just Due & Civil Rights

2007-04-24T09:47:00.000-07:00

Use of Wiccan Symbol on Veterans’ Headstones Is Approved

Back in July of 2006 I became aware of a civil liberties battle that involved a veteran killed while serving on active duty in Afghanistan as a member of the Nevada National Guard and the refusal of the federal government, by way of the Veterans' Administration, to allow a Wiccan religious symbol to be placed on his headstone and on a memorial plaque honoring our fallen heroes. In that post, An Unconstitutional Refusal To Honor A Fallen Hero, I noted that while on active duty myself, and being a practicing Buddhist at the time, I was not allowed to express my religious preference on official Navy documents while in Boot Camp.

As a veteran, and a civil liberties advocate, I was appalled by the continued preference afforded to only certain religious groups (the VA had previously allowed 38 religious symbols, many of which are different Christian symbols). Up until the 1980s, this list of "approved symbols" did not include a lot of religious traditions outside of the Abrahamic traditions and a few other major religions of the world. Somewhere along the chronology the list was expanded to include 38 symbols. However, alternative symbols have been stringently resisted while conservative administrations have held the reins of the executive branch. The fight to include a symbol for the Wiccan tradition took over 10 years. While I am pleased that this fight has finally allowed one of our fallen heroes to receive the recognition of his service and fulfillment of his rights, I am disgusted that it took over ten years to allow religious preferences to be acknowledged and allowed.

I am further appalled at some of the conditions set out as part of this settlement, including provisions that copies of e-mails, transcripts and memos, some of which come from George W. Bush when he was governor in Texas. Another particular of the case was that no reference to President Bush's involvement in the case can be asserted. While the civil liberties advocates that brought the suit never made such a claim, it is clear that President Bush (and possibly his administration and cabinet officers) holds unrestrained prejudice and has sought discriminatory practices against Wiccan practitioners in the past. I am not sure I could prove Bush's employed his bias and discrimination to influence these matters in a court of law, but it is not a far reach for a reasonable person to conclude that there was some sort of pressure to employ Bush's views on the subject.

To settle a lawsuit, the Department of Veterans Affairs has agreed to add the Wiccan pentacle to a list of approved religious symbols that it will engrave on veterans’ headstones.

The settlement, which was reached on Friday, was announced on Monday by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the plaintiffs in the case.

Though it has many forms, Wicca is a type of pre-Christian belief that reveres nature and its cycles. Its symbol is the pentacle, a five-pointed star, inside a circle.

Until now, the Veterans Affairs department had approved 38 symbols to indicate the faith of deceased service members on memorials. It normally takes a few months for a petition by a faith group to win the department’s approval, but the effort on behalf of the Wiccan symbol took about 10 years and a lawsuit, said Richard B. Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United.

The group attributed the delay to religious discrimination. Many Americans do not consider Wicca a religion, or hold the mistaken belief that Wiccans are devil worshipers.

“The Wiccan families we represented were in no way asking for special treatment,” the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said at a news conference Monday. “They wanted precisely the same treatment that dozens of other religions already had received from the department, an acknowledgment that their spiritual beliefs were on par with those of everyone else.”

A Veterans Affairs spokesman, Matt Burns, confirmed that the “V.A. will be adding the pentacle to its list of approved emblems of belief that will be engraved on government-provided markers.”

“The government acted to settle in the interest of the families concerned,” Mr. Burns added, “and to spare taxpayers the expense of further litigation.”

There are 1,800 Wiccans in the armed forces, according to a Pentagon survey cited in the suit, and Wiccans have their faith mentioned in official handbooks for military chaplains and noted on their dog tags.

At least 11 families will be immediately affected by the V.A.’s decision, said the Rev. Selena Fox, senior minister of Circle Sanctuary, a Wiccan church in Wisconsin.

In reviewing 30,000 pages of documents from Veterans Affairs, Americans United said, it found e-mail and memorandums referring to negative comments President Bush made about Wicca in an interview with “Good Morning America” in 1999, when he was governor of Texas. The interview had to do with a controversy at the time about Wiccan soldiers’ being allowed to worship at Fort Hood, Tex.

“I don’t think witchcraft is a religion,” Mr. Bush said at the time, according to a transcript. “I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made.”

Americans United did not assert that the White House influenced the Veterans Affairs Department. Under the settlement, Americans United had to return the documents and could not copy them, though it could make limited comments about their contents, Mr. Katskee said.

Justice System & Death Penalty Needs Review

2007-04-23T20:12:00.000-07:00

DNA To Clear 200th Person

I have often heard that our system of justice is not perfect, but it is the best in the world. Well, that is all fine and dandy unless you are the victim of a wrongful conviction. This news report indicates that we have reached a milestone where the 200th person is being cleared by DNA evidence. Of course, this person has already served almost 25 years in prison. So now when I hear that old rub about our system being the best in the world I have to wonder if we cannot improve upon a system that is obviously munged in all the wrong places.

When we watch the lawyer shows on television we see a fantastical portrayal of how the system works. The lawyers and cops always seem to get their convictions, with a few exceptions, in the end of the process. But some of these shows illustrate the flaws in our system. Those flaws include the following dynamics:

1. Our law enforcement investigative process is often munged because the police find a likely suspect and then stop trying to work the evidence because a probable suspect is identified. I do not mean to belittle the great efforts by our police. Many cops are honest, hard working and driven by a sense of ethics and professionalism. However, as my grandmother told me many times, "It only takes one bad apple to ruin the barrel." If even one investigator takes a shortcut, or doesn't follow proper investigative process, then the entire system gets munged. We know from experience and history that there have been a lot of wrongful convictions based on these types of errors.

2. Our evidence collection process is often munged because of the field work by criminalists or laboratory processing not being done under stringent conditions. In my own work experience I have seen criminal cases blown because the lab used to process blood evidence was not adhering to proper lab procedures. I have also seen cases blown because the chain of evidence is broken. A good example of this is the now infamous O.J. Simpson case.

Then, too, there are questions about the validity of certain lab processes and evidence analysis. DNA testing is a great example of this type of problem. While DNA is a great forensic laboratory process with great potential to include or exclude a suspect, the problems with DNA lie in how it is collected and how it is processed. Many of the labs conducting DNA analysis have been found to be doing so with problems of cross-contamination, not adhering to the strictest laboratory standards, or having a record of poor processing (creating false outcomes).

Fingerprints, too, are not as reliable as we once thought. We were once told that all fingerprints are unique. We now know that is not always the case. Additionally, the history of fingerprint analysis is filled with problems, including working off of a six-point identification comparison, or a ten-point identification comparison. We now know that anything less than a fourteen-point identification comparison is likely to be wrong in as much as 25% of the cases. Even at the fourteen-point level of comparison there may be a margin of error greater than three percent.

Further evidence problems have been the result of dental records, bite mark analysis, bite radius comparison and dental reconstruction techniques used in a lot of cases. Not too long ago there were reports of a bite mark and bite radius expert from Louisiana that was used in cases all over the United States who was found to have no genuine credentials in the field of forensic anatomy, forensic dentistry or even laboratory science. Making things worse, many subsequent forensic studies have brought the entire concept of analyzing bite marks and bite radius into question. In terms of dental records, most people receive treatment from dentists in five or six places and several different dental practitioners over their life time. It is almost impossible to track each one of these practitioners down to find all the records to assure an adequate and accurate dental comparison.

3. Our system of legal representation is munged. Unless a suspect or accused is inherently wealthy enough to purchase the services of a legal "dream team," most suspects are left to their own devices for legal representation, or to the public defender system.

There is no way to actually verify the quality of the legal services being provided to a person paying for legal representation out of pocket. There is no genuine record of the cases lost or won by any given attorney. A lawyer can represent a person in any type of case, even if their experience and expertise in a particular area is not proven. While in the bigger metropolitan areas lawyers often specialize in certain types of practice, in the less metro areas of our nation--of which there are a lot more than metro areas--lawyers often offer services in criminal, family, estate and civil litigation and representation. The reality in these cases is that the lawyer chosen from the yellow pages or even word of mouth referral may not be competent enough to represent a suspect fairly and fully.

In terms of legal aid and public defender representation, the system has been under systematic attack for over 15 years. Under the last several GOP presidential administrations and GOP-dominated congresses the funding for legal aid and public defender organizations have been cut dramatically... even drastically. The case load of most public defenders is so large and so time consuming that case management often achieves only a fair to basically competent level. In this type of legal environment, many questions and investigative options are not possible by the defense.

4. We rely too much on pleading out and negotiating our criminal cases. When an accused person does not have the resources to fully investigate the evidence against them, as is the situation in the vast majority of criminal proceedings, there is a tendency to push the pleading out process and agenda. The prosecution doesn't mind doing this in a lot of cases because it represents a conviction on their side of the equation and saves money in the long term. The public defenders do not mind this process in most cases because it helps to clear their caseload. The courts do not mind this process because our courts are so filled with cases, the less time spent in actually conducting a trial the better.

But plea bargaining seems to benefit everyone except the suspect or accused in most cases. The process doesn't seem to mind that justice, as intended and defined by our forefathers and framers, is not always the objective of the process. Most lawyers are trained, in law school and on the job, that justice and the law are two disparate and distinctly different notions, process and objectives.

5. Court procedures, rules of evidence and dockets are often too confusing and bungled to allow an accused person to fully understand the entirety of the case in which they are involved. While lawyers are supposed to educate their clients as to the process, rules and possible outcomes, it has been my experience as an expert witness and state witness against accused persons that such is not always done. Our laws and courts are too far removed from the reach of the average citizen. Even the filing fees and the preliminary screening processes make justice unreachable in a lot of cases.

A case on point is a situation in which I got involved in trying to negotiate a housing problem for one of my brothers. The landlord had removed the door to his apartment and stolen the rent money. We had this on videotape and had two other tenants willing to testify that they saw the landlord remove the door. Clearly this was a violation of housing laws as well as a criminal offense. As a housing advocate with several years of experience, I went to see the landlord to negotiate some sort of resolution. I had another apartment available for my brother to move into within a relatively short time as a back up if negotiations failed. As I entered the landlord's place of business and identified myself, he and his wife began kicking, screaming and punching at me.

The long and short of it is that we ended up at the court house in front of one of the clerks in the probable cause process. We had videotape, witnesses and adequate evidence to demonstrate criminal and civil breaches of the law. Upon entering the clerk's office the landlord called my mother a dirty name and tried to punch her in the back of the head while the clerk was reading over the case file. When we complained, the clerk kicked us out of the office and sided with the landlord and his wife. We were immediately referred to a mediation agency rather than being allowed to bring the case before a judge. We had to go to the agency or the clerk would not continue with the probable cause process. When the mediator determined that neither party was willing to participate in the ADR process, we went back to the clerk. He dismissed the case without a hearing.

There was never a moment when justice or due process was made available to us. The clerk used his discretionary powers to rule the case as unimportant and insufficient for a probable cause ruling... without ever examining the evidence brought with us. Similar dynamics exist in a lot of the plea bargaining that occurs in our legal system. Certainly we want plea bargaining and pleading out to be an option in our legal system. But when it becomes the predominant way to deal with cases and causes injustice to occur, we need to re-examine it in its entirety.

6. Justice, and legal representation, costs too much. While our Constitution specifies that justice should not be for sale to the highest bidder, that is essentially how our system works. The court fees alone are an example of arbitrary, capricious and often prohibitive barrier to seeking justice. Lawyers are charging a lot of money for simple representation and a lot more for more complex representation.

A simple letter, often derived from a set of boilerplate templates, can cost a client upwards of a hundred bucks. A court appearance can cost $300 to $600 per hour, including charges for the time a lawyer travels to and from the courthouse (especially true in places where lawyers practice in multiple jurisdictions or rural areas).

Lawyers in the bigger firms are evaluated not only on the cases they win, but predominantly on the number of billable hours (or portions thereof). The old joke is that if a lawyer is wiping his butt in the bathroom and thinking about his caseload, he will bill everyone of his clients a minimum of 15 minutes for that activity.

Most ordinary folks cannot afford legal representation or the time, money and energy it takes to get the court's attention, so justice and a fair process are almost totally removed from their grasp.

7. Getting the courts to open a case to review evidence, consider new evidence, or review the level or representation or violations of due process is harder than pulling teeth from the mouth a an angry, hungry lion. There are several organizations now advocating for such reviews, but even these folks do not seem to be able to guarantee the courts will look at these important issues.

8. The presumption of innocence has become a joke. While our Constitution requires the presumption of innocence, the de facto way the courts and law enforcement work all but eliminates that presumption. It is not supposed to be the way in which we conduct our legal processes, but it has been the case historically and is increasing worsening.

So when I read yet another case where an innocent person has served an excessive amount of time in prison for a crime that he/she did not commit, I get significantly concerned. I especially get concerned when I read that several states are seeking to reinstate or become more ready to assign the death penalty sentence.

We really need to clean up our legal system. The recent undermining of our Constitution and the legal system, and legal standards, by President Bush, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld and others raises these issues to new heights. The circumvention of civil rights, human rights, due process and abolition of the right to habeas corpus in those cases against alleged combatants or alleged terrorists is overwhelming evidence that our system is under attack and constant erosion.

A former Army cook who spent nearly 25 years in prison for a rape he did not commit is scheduled today to become the 200th person exonerated by DNA evidence, underscoring the quickening pace of overturned convictions, according to the Innocence Project.

The New York-based legal group says the 100th exoneration occurred in January 2002, 13 years after the first exoneration. It took just more than five years for the number to double.

"Five years ago, people said that the number (of exonerations) was going to dry up because there just weren't many wrongful convictions," said lawyer Barry Scheck, who co-founded the Innocence Project in 1992 to help prisoners prove their innocence through DNA evidence. "But clearly, there are plenty of innocent persons still in prison. There's no way you can look at this data without believing that."

David Lazer, a Harvard University public policy professor who specializes in DNA issues, says improved testing technology and an increase in the number of lawyers who are taking on DNA cases should result in a continued increase in the number of wrongful convictions that are set aside.

Convicting an innocent person is "every prosecutor's nightmare," said Joshua Marquis, vice president of the National District Attorneys Association.

The "tiny number" of exonerations suggests that the "epidemic of bad convictions" that Scheck suggests is "fiction," said Marquis, chief prosecutor in Clatsop County, Ore. There were 1,051,000 felony convictions in state courts in 2002, up from 829,300 in 1990, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The exoneration milestone is to be reached today in Chicago, where Cook County prosecutors and Innocence Project attorneys together will petition a Chicago court to set aside Jerry Miller's 1982 conviction, said Tandra Simonton, a spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office.

Miller, 48, was convicted of raping, robbing, assaulting and kidnapping an office worker in a Near North Side parking lot in September 1981.

REFERENCES:

DNA Tests Prompt Review of '92 Illinois Rape

A man imprisoned for a 1992 rape was one step closer to freedom Friday after DNA tests appeared to clear him in the attack, his attorney said.

Marlon Pendleton, 49, was released on a bond until a hearing scheduled for next Thursday, when a judge is expected to consider a motion filed by his attorneys to vacate the rape conviction.

But Pendleton may have to spend at least several days at Dixon Correctional Center. As a sex offender, Pendleton is required to make living arrangements and work out details for his release, his attorney Karen Daniel said.

Pendleton demanded DNA testing after his rape arrest, but police lab analyst Pamela Fish said there wasn't enough genetic material to test the evidence. Pendleton was convicted based on the victim's identification.

The expert who conducted the new tests, Brian Wraxall of Serological Research Institute, said Wednesday there was "a reasonable amount of DNA."

In addition to the 1992 rape, Pendleton was nearing the end of a 12-year sentence for sexual assault. Pendleton claims that he's innocent in both cases, "and I believe him," Daniel said.

Scientific Testimony: DNA Testing Problems

* Background on Houston Crime Laboratory Scandal (March 7, 2003)
* DNA Evidence Sent Wrong Man to Prison (March 11, 2003)
* More DNA Testing Problems in Virginia: Va. v. Leon Winston (Nov 27, 2005)
* Independent Review Panel (Eisenberg Committee) Report
* Virginia Refuses Condemned Man's Request for Access to Scientific Data That Might
Prove His Innocence (July 7, 2005)
* ASCLD-Lab Review of DNA Testing in the Earl Washington Case
* Update on Lovitt Case (July 9, 2005)

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR ISSUES FIFTH REPORT ON HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LAB

Houston Police Department Lab Investigation

Crime & Science: The Weight Of Evidence

Seattle Post Series: Errors In Evidence

Oversight of Crime-Lab Staff Has Often Been Lax

A close look at the Washington State Patrol crime lab reveals a stressed system where officials have been slow to deal with misconduct by longtime employees.

Crime Labs Too Beholden to Prosecutors, Critics Say

Flawed forensic work not only leads to wrongful convictions, it leaves criminals on the street.

That's a good reason to care about reforming state-run crime labs, legal experts say.

"What you have in this country is an epidemic of crime lab scandals," said Barry Scheck, president-elect of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Scheck is co-founder of the New-York based Innocence Project, a group that has helped exonerate 145 wrongfully convicted prisoners.

"Forensic science has to be an independent third force in the justice system," he said, "not beholden to prosecutors and police."

Proposed solutions center on more government scrutiny and better-funded labs. At the top of the list is a federal law requiring crime labs to comply with the same kind of rules medical labs have had to follow since 1967.

Clinical lab workers have to take frequent "blind" proficiency tests that are mixed into their regular work -- unlike crime lab staff who know when they're being tested.

Blind testing would uncover a lot more errors at state crime labs, said Janine Arvizu, an expert from Albuquerque, who has audited federal and private labs. "The forensic industry just won't bite that bullet," she said. "There's this attitude that, 'We work for the good guys -- just trust us.' "

Even the national voluntary accreditation group recommends, but does not require, blind testing.

"If you know it's a proficiency test, the person may do better work than usual and double-check it more," said Ralph Keaton, executive director of American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors.

Washington crime lab officials say blind testing is too costly and difficult to administer. The system would have to design its own tests and collude with police to pass them off as real since forensic scientists consult with officers, said Barry Logan, director of the Washington State Patrol's Forensic Laboratory Services Bureau.

Critics also want a federal law to require regular inspections by independent outside experts and licensing of forensic scientists.

"We really want to get the bad guys who did it," said John Strait, a Seattle University law professor who teaches forensics. "We want reliability in the system."

Shadow Of Doubt

A year ago, the State Patrol conducted an internal audit of Arnold Melnikoff, a forensic scientist accused of improperly testing the evidence in some cases. The audit examined 100 felony drug cases, and troubling flaws were found in 30.

Seventeen of those cases resulted in convictions for crimes ranging from simple possession to making meth. But none of the 22 defendants in those cases was notified about the flaws, a P-I investigation found.

Tarnish On The 'Gold Standard': Recent Problems In Forensic DNA Testing

DNA evidence has long been called “the gold standard” of forensic science. Most people believe it is virtually infallible — that it either produces the right result or no result. But this belief is difficult to square with recent news stories about errors in DNA testing. An extraordinary number of problems related to forensic DNA evidence have recently come to light.

Experts May No Longer Testify That Fingerprints 'Match'

For the first time, a federal judge has ruled that fingerprint experts
cannot tell juries that two fingerprints are a "match" because the science
they rely on does not meet the U.S. Supreme Court's Daubert test.

But Senior U.S. District Judge Louis H. Pollak of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania stopped short of tossing out all fingerprint testimony in United States v. Plaza, saying such a ruling would be "unwarrantably heavy-handed."

Instead, Pollak sided with the government by taking "judicial notice" of
the fact that fingerprints are both "unique" and "permanent."

He then ruled that the experts on both sides can testify about how the
prints were obtained and the similarities and differences between them,
but are barred from expressing any opinion about whether the prints are a
"match."

The ruling is a huge victory for the criminal defense bar, especially
since it comes from a judge with the stature of Pollak, a former dean of
both the Yale and University of Pennsylvania law schools who is routinely
invited to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

100th Death Row Exoneration

Ray Krone, once labeled the "snaggle tooth killer," signed autographs for fellow inmates as he walked out of prison after being exonerated by DNA. He became the 100th death row inmate to be proven innocent since 1973, the modern death penalty era beginning post- Furman.

Ray Krone was twice convicted for a murder he did not commit. A judge sentenced him to death after the first trial and to life at the retrial. The evidence against him was circumstantial, including shoe prints and bite marks. Due to an accident, he has a distinctive dental pattern. A government expert testified that bite marks on the victim "matched" Ray Krone's teeth print. The argument was he had to be the "snaggletooth killer."

Now that the DNA results have exonerated Krone, the bite marks were compared to Phillips, the sex offender whose DNA was found on the victim. With the DNA results inland, the bite mark "expert" determined that bite marks are not uniquely Krone's pattern-- the bite marks are also "consistent with" Phillips.

More Bush Administration Arrogance: Gonzales Vows To Stay

2007-04-23T12:55:00.000-07:00

Gonzales Vows To Remain Attorney General

In another obvious thumbing of their collective noses at Congress, President Bush and Attorney General Gonzales have taken the arrogant position of vowing to keep Gonzales in office, despite the calls for his resignation from many corners, the outrage and disgust with Gonzales's testimony before Congress in regard to the US Attorney scandals, the continuing saga of improper/illegal spying on US citizens, and the utter contempt for our civil liberties, privacy and the Constitution.

Alberto Gonzales, with a fresh vote of confidence from President Bush, vowed Monday to remain as attorney general despite lingering differences with senators over the firing of federal prosecutors.

Appearing at a news conference on identity theft, Gonzales said he will remain "as long as I can continue to serve effectively."

The arrogance is further demonstrated by the lack of support coming out of the GOP side of Congress, including statements and calls for resignation from Senator Arlen Specter. While Specter has had his moments of wavering from support of President Bush and the Bush agenda, he has ordinarily remained publicly supportive of the president and his gang. But in the case of Gonzales, Specter is clearly stating that his continued service as the US Attorney General is hurting the Justice Department, and definitely implying that he is hurting the Bush administration and the GOP.

If anyone cares to keep track, the number of Bush administration folks that have been hurting the president, the congress, their agency and our nation continues to grow. The list includes John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge, Michael Brown (FEMA), Monica Goodling, Scooter Libby and now Alberto Gonzales. I would venture to say that the list is actually quite a bit longer than that, but we do not get to know what is going on in our own government. But then there is another list of people that left the Bush administration for the sake of their own reputation, including Colin Powell, any number of retired flag officers, and numerous career diplomats (i.e. Mary Ann Wright, et al.)

The number of senators that are getting riled in response to President Bush's contempt for Congress is growing. Despite it being redundant, I reiterate my call for impeachment as the only real solution for Bush's contempt and disregard for Congress and the American people.

Specter Says Gonzales Is Hurting Justice Department

Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is hurting the Justice Department and the Bush administration by not resigning.

Gonzales testified before the committee last week, addressing questions about whether the Justice Department dismissed federal prosecutors for partisan purposes.

Specter did not call directly for the attorney general to step down, but said Gonzales's testimony "was very, very damaging to his own credibility. It has been damaging to the administration."

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the Judiciary Committee chairman, upped the stakes on the White House by saying on CBS that it is not enough for Gonzales to resign; he must be replaced by someone more independent.

"If the White House is continued to be allowed to interfere with the criminal justice system throughout this country . . . then it does no good," he told "Face the Nation."

Even The Iraqi Kurds Want To Run A Course That Diverts From The Bush Plan

2007-04-23T12:21:00.000-07:00

Kurds Cultivating Their Own Bonds With U.S.

The 30-second television commercial features stirring scenes of a young Iraqi boy high-fiving a U.S. soldier, a Westerner dining alfresco, and men and women dancing together. "Have you seen the other Iraq?" the narrator asks. "It's spectacular. It's joyful."

"Welcome to Iraqi Kurdistan!" the narrator continues. "It's not a dream. It's the other Iraq."

Even the notion of "the other Iraq" speaks volumes about how the sectarian, ethnic and religious differences--and conflicts--are playing out in Iraq. The Kurds, which have the best record in terms of controlling violence, restoring order, and restarting community services anywhere in Iraq, have expressed the concept of an Iraq that allows them to have significant autonomy, if not complete independence... as long as it has a fair share of the oil and economic resources. Of course, this revelation, even in its implied form, counters the Bush notion of a new, more modern and democratic Iraq.

With Sunni and Shiite Arabs locked in a bloody sectarian war, Iraq's Kurds are promoting their interests through an influence-buying campaign in the United States that includes airing nationwide television advertisements, hiring powerful Washington lobbyists and playing parts of the U.S. government against each other. A former car mechanic who happens to be the son of Iraq's president is at the center of Kurdish efforts to cultivate support for their semi-independent enclave, but the cast of Kurdish proponents also includes evangelical Christians, Israeli operatives and Republican political consultants.

The Kurds have learned something about our nation relatively fast: we are for sale. At least our politics and policies are for sale through influence peddling and power brokering. It is interesting that they have not only included the Christian Right and ultra-conservatives, but have specifically targeted them. However, given the recent rifts between these ultra-conservatives, these ultra-religious folks and President Bush (and most of his administration, one has to wonder if the Kurds haven't gone down the wrong political pathway. Given that many members of the GOP side of Congress are also building walls between the Bush gang and themselves, there may be some interesting developments in our relationship with the Kurds.

In the past year, the Kurds have spent more than $3 million to retain lobbyists and set up a diplomatic office in Washington. They are cultivating grass-roots advocates among supporters of President Bush's war policy and evangelicals who believe that many key figures in the Bible lived in Kurdistan. And they are seeking to build an emotional bond with ordinary Americans, like those forged by Israel and Taiwan, by running commercials on national cable news channels to assert that even as Iraq teeters toward a full-blown civil war, one corner of the country, at least, has fulfilled the Bush administration's ambition of a peaceful, democratic, pro-Western beachhead in the Middle East.

Very interesting tidbits of information are disclosed here. The Kurds are astute enough to hedge there political shopping with efforts to garner support from the Christian Right, most of whom have money to spare (and fundraising resources) when Biblical archeology and Biblical tourism are involved. If the ultra-conservatives and conservatives continue to lose their political clout, the option of private fundraising, grant-making, donation solicitation and investment from Christian sources remains open.

But elements of the Kurds' campaign run counter to the policy of a unified Iraq espoused by the U.S. and Iraqi governments. Some senior U.S. officials contend that yielding to Kurdish demands for increased autonomy could break up Iraq and destabilize Turkey, a NATO ally that is fighting a guerrilla war with Kurdish separatists -- some of whom have taken sanctuary in Iraqi Kurdistan.

It is clear that the Kurds have an agenda of their own that does not necessarily adhere to the Bush agenda. Indeed, the Kurds may be in a position to force a complete break from Iraq, forming an independent Kurdish state, leaving the Arab Sunni and Shi'ite factions to fight a civil war for the parts of Iraq currently controlled by each of these factions. Such a scenario is way outside of the thinking and will of President Bush and his puppets here and in Iraq.

Kurdish leaders cast their self-promotion initiative as a bulwark against attempts to restrict their federal rights. With only 40,000 or so Kurds living in the United States, Kurdish officials insist they have no choice but to pursue the dual strategy of wooing non-Kurdish constituencies and lobbying in Washington.

"We have to use all the tools at our disposal to help ourselves," said Qubad Talabani, the son of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, sent here as the Kurdistan Regional Government's representative in Washington.

Kurds want the sort of "strategic and institutional relationship" that Israel and Taiwan have with the United States, Talabani, 29, said. "It doesn't matter which party is in power in Washington -- the U.S. government isn't going to abandon either of those countries," he added. "We are seeking the same protection."

This approach from the Kurds is actually quite intuitive and brilliant on the part of the Kurdish leadership. While specifically targeting the right wing of our political and cultural spectrums, the Kurdish leadership is also avoiding being locked out from all sides of our politics and culture. By seeking to create a "protectorate" type of relationship with the US and the West, the Kurds could end up with the support of most of the international community, especially if it translates into some relative security in at least one Middle East location. Since the Kurds are not Arabs, and have not engaged in the conflicts between Sunni and Shi'ite doctrines/ideology, and are willing to be open to Israel along with the west, there are likely going to be a lot of western powers and nations willing to support the concept. It also doesn't hurt that the Kurds control a portion of the oil pipelines and wells in their region of Iraq.

Talabani, a former Maserati repairman, was raised by his grandparents in Britain and moved to Washington in 2000 knowing nothing about power politics. He soon began dating -- and later married -- a State Department staffer working on Iraq policy. He wears French-cuff shirts and Windsor-knotted ties with pinstripe suits. He lunches at the Bombay Club and works two blocks from the White House.

He has more clout than any other Iraqi in Washington because of his ability to call his father directly and because he represents the collective view of an influential minority -- one that holds enough seats in Iraq's parliament to wield effective veto power over a proposed law to distribute national oil revenue to Iraqis, as well as other legislation sought by the United States. By contrast, Baghdad's ambassador to Washington is a secular Sunni Arab who has limited sway with his Shiite-dominated government.

Talabani is in regular contact with senior officials in the White House. He drops in on members of Congress, and he has met with four of the presidential candidates: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.).

"We've been on the fringes for too long," Talabani said.

The Kurdish leadership is playing the game quite well.

But they are not allying themselves with George W. Bush. In fact, they are opposing many of the plans put forth by the Bush administration. It is clear that the Kurds are currently in control of their destiny, have a plan for their own future no matter what happens with the Shi'ite and Sunni Arab populations. The push from the Bush administration to maintain a single Iraqi nation, and eventually develop positive relationships in terms of oil and economic development with this single sovereign nation, is in jeopardy.